D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Cadence]

@iserith has the right of the example being one for how ad/dis interact, but if we're going to look at it as a possible conflict in advice for application of passive checks, it's very simply resolved by stepping back a bit. A check is only called for by the GM if the action taken has an uncertain outcome and a meaning consequence of failure. This applies to passive checks as well. In this example, the GM in question made the call to ask for a check and determined that a passive check was appropriate given the duration of the action in question. Done.

I like that they were allowed the passive check (with penalty) in spite of "not paying attention". Similarly, I like that passive checks are similarly allowed to find hiding things even when someone isn't actively searching.

I'm not sure how "duration of the action" comes to play in this example.

It doesn't feel like the DM had much of a determination to make in terms of what sort of check was appropriate here. Is the DM even allowed by RAW to call for a perception roll for someone "not paying attention"? The player has certainly declared an action, but the action explicitly does not involve perceiving what is ahead. From what I've seen and what @iserith said it seems not to fall under when calling for a roll is allowed.

Finally, to address the comment upthread (I'm being lazy and not looking for it, apologies) that asked what happens if a player starts using real world knowledge about sciencey and tech things in game, creating gunpowder being a given example -- that's, again, entirely a problem created by the GM. Your world doesn't have to have gunpowder, or have gunpowder that works at all like the real world. Or it's magic. Frankly, this is a trivial problem, and really an opportunity to work with that player to create an interesting sideline where they create gunpowder. If it's a continuous problem, or violently against the premise of the game, then it's not even an in-game problem -- you need to take this out-of-game and deal with it as real people. Again, if this is actually a problem, it's entirely the fault of the GM.

There are a large number of things that are harder to wave away than gun powder. It feels strange to have to declare some combinations of arithmetic and the simple machines don't work just to thwart an entrepreneurial character (anything involving more than five simple machines in tandem are attacked by gremlins?). Taking it out-of-the-game and dealing with it as real people seems like the obvious solution to me.

 

[Maxperson]

So once the characters figure out that trolls regenerate unless hit with fire or acid you will never throw trolls at them again?

Depends on the adventure, but I like to switch up monsters and not repeat a lot just as a matter of personal preference. If they're in the troll moors, they'll encounter trolls whether they know about the way around the regeneration or not.

That doesn't change that if there's never a point where the regeneration matters, it might as well not exist.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I like that they were allowed the passive check (with penalty) in spite of "not paying attention". Similarly, I like that passive checks are similarly allowed to find hiding things even when someone isn't actively searching.

I'm not sure how "duration of the action" comes to play in this example.

It doesn't feel like the DM had much of a determination to make in terms of what sort of check was appropriate here. Is the DM even allowed by RAW to call for a perception roll for someone "not paying attention"? The player has certainly declared an action, but the action explicitly does not involve perceiving what is ahead. From what I've seen and what @iserith said it seems not to fall under when calling for a roll is allowed.

Duration is one of the things that triggers a passive check. It could also have been the GM not wanting to tip their hand at that juncture.

And, yes, they were allowed a check because the GM thought that the action had an uncertain outcome with a clear negative for failure (the monsters surprise you). That the action declared -- running full tilt -- was poorly suited to the goal -- notice monsters -- meant that the GM applied disadvantage. It's pretty straightforward an example if you don't look at it as thwarting the core play loop. If you do assume it means that passive checks are always on rather than being a subset of the normal resolution mechanics, then, yes, it will appear to be an inconsistency and a problem.

There are a large number of things that are harder to wave away than gun powder. It feels strange to have to declare some combinations of arithmetic and the simple machines don't work just to thwart an entrepreneurial character (anything involving more than five simple machines in tandem are attacked by gremlins?). Taking it out-of-the-game and dealing with it as real people seems like the obvious solution to me.

Ok, let me try this example: the player states that their character swings their sword, using a specific real world combat technique, and declares the result is that the foe they are facing is stabbed through the heart. Is this something you'd allow, or would you say, "yeah, sure, maybe make an attack roll first?"

If so, then the example you give is just as trivial. That the player states knowledge doesn't mean that their character is actually capable of enacting that knowledge. The GM can adjudicate it like any other action. That can be saying nope, yep, or roll. It's no different.

Now, the player can have their character state, emphatically, that they know exactly how to run their business, but that's not true until tested. Just like the example in the OP -- the player can have they're PC emphatically state the NPC is a lich, but that doesn't make it true.

I will take a sidebar and discuss a kind of action declaration I think is a problem, and that's one that violates the agreed genre constraints of the game. Trying to repeatedly do sci-fi stuff in a D&D game, for instance, is a mismatch of genre. This is, however, an out-of-game problem and needs to be dealt with there, like any other violation of the social contract. Expecting the game rules to enforce play when it falls outside of the ambit of the game is going to cause trouble. If you have a social contract that says no "metagaming", however your group defines it, then this isn't something the rules should ever address -- it's your tablerule, you deal with it at the level of the table, not the game.

 

[iserith]

I like that they were allowed the passive check (with penalty) in spite of "not paying attention". Similarly, I like that passive checks are similarly allowed to find hiding things even when someone isn't actively searching.

I'm not sure how "duration of the action" comes to play in this example.

Passive checks apply to tasks performed repeatedly over time, when those tasks have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

As to "not paying attention," I think that's a turn of phrase in the example rather than an accurate statement of the situation in alignment with the rules. The character in the example is running away from the beholder and into some ogres lying in wait. It is not 100% clear if the character is in a formal combat or chase scene (for which there are structured rules), but it does refer to the ogres as "readying" which - if this is referring to the rules - may only happen in combat. If that's the case, then the character is alert to signs of danger all around which means passive Perception applies as needed. A fast pace, due to the PC running, means that the score is at disadvantage, which is a -5 penalty to the passive Perception score. Why this is even relevant, however, is unclear because if we're already in a combat, then there's no need to worry about passive Perception because the character can't be surprised at this point, since combat is already underway, and the ogres aren't taking any steps to try to Hide in favor of Readying. This means you don't need to compare their Dexterity (Stealth) checks against the PC's passive Perception score.

So, I wouldn't put much stock on this example as being relevant to understanding ability checks or passive checks and more appropriate to understanding what considerations might go into determining whether a character has advantage or disadvantage on a check and how the presence of both cancels each other out.

It doesn't feel like the DM had much of a determination to make in terms of what sort of check was appropriate here. Is the DM even allowed by RAW to call for a perception roll for someone "not paying attention"? The player has certainly declared an action, but the action explicitly does not involve perceiving what is ahead. From what I've seen and what @iserith said it seems not to fall under when calling for a roll is allowed.

An ability check is called for when a player describes what he or she wants the character to do and the DM determines that the outcome of that task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If that task is performed repeatedly, then it can be a passive check.

 

[Cadence]

An ability check is called for when a player describes what he or she wants the character to do and the DM determines that the outcome of that task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If that task is performed repeatedly, then it can be a passive check.

Right. I think my brain might have added extra restrictions.

So, if the characters say "We set off from city A to city B on the main road. The order is our usual X-Y-Z." By RAW, can I give them a perception roll when if somewhere along the way there is something I think they have a chance of noticing, but won't do so for sure, and I'd like there to be randomness?

 

[Guest 6801328]

If it’s true that player knowledge turns a challenging encounter into an easy one (in the case of trolls, for example) then asking the DM if you know, followed by a single success at a Nature check, accomplishes the same thing.

A game where every combat starts with a knowledge check, and the outcome of a single role determines whether or not the ensuing combat is “balanced”, would be a poorly designed game indeed.

But I don’t think 5e is that game.

 

[iserith]

Right. I think my brain might have added extra restrictions.

So, if the characters say "We set off from city A to city B on the main road. The order is our usual X-Y-Z." By RAW, can I give them a perception roll when if somewhere along the way there is something I think they have a chance of noticing, but won't do so for sure, and I'd like there to be randomness?

The players in your example did not describe what they were doing other than the order in which they were marching. Without additional information, the DM has to assume and establish what the characters are doing while traveling, which (1) is not the DM's role and (2) makes it harder or impossible to adjudicate. So ideally the players each say what they are doing while traveling in their marching order.

If they all say they are staying alert to danger, then the DM has to decide who in the marching order has a chance at noticing it based on the danger's positions relative to the party. For those characters, the DM may call for an ability check if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If they are staying alert to danger repeatedly over time, then it may be a passive check.

There's a common thing I notice many DMs doing which is that the PCs enter an area, having otherwise said nothing about what they were doing while moving about, and the DM goes, "Okay, everyone give me an uhhhhhh Perception check." At that point, the DM decides what various PCs can see as a way of describing the environment. This gets the play loop out of order in my view which tells the DM first to describe the environment, presenting the basic scope of actions the PCs can take. At that point, the players can start describing what they want to do which may call for ability checks to resolve.

 

[Maxperson]

If it’s true that player knowledge turns a challenging encounter into an easy one (in the case of trolls, for example) then asking the DM if you know, followed by a single success at a Nature check, accomplishes the same thing.

It can, but it's not guaranteed. The game accounts for checks to know things. It does not account for the automatic invalidation resistances and exploitation of weaknesses.

A game where every combat starts with a knowledge check, and the outcome of a single role determines whether or not the ensuing combat is “balanced”, would be a poorly designed game indeed.

Yep. good thing D&D isn't designed that way. Over the long haul the players will make some encounters easier, but not all. It's not at all based on a single roll.

But I don’t think 5e is that game.

Agreed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

(ignore. Phone issues)

 

[Guest 6801328]

It can, but it's not guaranteed. The game accounts for checks to know things. It does not account for the automatic invalidation resistances and exploitation of weaknesses.

Yep. good thing D&D isn't designed that way. Over the long haul the players will make some encounters easier, but not all. It's not at all based on a single roll.

Well, over the long haul player knowledge will only work part of the time, too. Right?

Basically your thesis that player knowledge trivializes combat could only be true if knowledge skills were generally acknowledged to be so powerful as to be OP. But nobody claims that.

You seem to be claiming that occasional player knowledge (which may or may not be accurate) trivialize combat, but rolling dice for that same knowledge (which may or may not succeed) does not.

You clearly have an aesthetic preference for one over the other, which is fine, but your attempts to give that preference some kind of objective superiority (whether through arguments about RAW, or CR, or whatever) are nonsense.