D&D 5E Understanding Passive Checks

[FrogReaver]

The bug rolled very low on his Hide check and was unable to beat your passive perception. Looking for the dog cone certainly involved some kind of stress -- you were both searching, presumably with some kind of time pressure or desire to be helpful by finding it -- so your rolled Perception and did low. I find your example actually reinforcing the RAW.

It wouldn't make sense to use the average since a good roll is enough, so with enough time one would be bound to succeed at detecting anything by virtue of rolling 20. I think it's meant to represent the "common performance" of a skill, without pressure that would enable low result or adrenaline that would allow exceptional performance.

I am strangely bugged more by the d20 variability to reflect regular performance at a task... (if you visit the dentist, you expect him to succeed to treat a tooth, despite probably having an un-heroic +3 or +4 modifier)

Reliable Talent​

By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

Maybe all Dentists have this for dental related work

 

[Maxperson]

No, they are doing the task repeatedly and then making one check, called a passive check, which uses the average result of a roll to perform that task (rounded down, as usual in D&D) to determine the net result of the character’s efforts over a period of time.

That makes no sense. Why would they do a task repeatedly with no checks and then suddenly get an average score? It's nonsense.

 

[Maxperson]

If it doesn't make sense to you, think of it another way.

When you're using passive perception you're getting the benefit of 'unconscious' skill use. You're not trying to be perceptive. You just might notice something.

And you might not. Your unconscious perception is not always going to be average whenever there's something important to notice. It's a nonsensical rule.

Why will your '10' result always be higher than your lowest rolls? Because you get the time to attempt it several times. It makes sense that you're not going to always get low rolls, so it is appropriate to have the roll be effectively at least a 10. And, if it isn't appropriate, a -5 penalty applies if the DM decides there should be disadvantage.

No, you don't get to attempt the passive check to notice something that is important several times. There's a meaningful consequence for failure, which means you need to know what all the numbers are.

Does this step on reliable talent? No. generally it does not. Most of the rolls where it matters is where there is a time pressure - and only the reliable talent gets the benefit of the passive floor for those rolls.

No, but it does step on reason and common sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

That makes no sense. Why would they do a task repeatedly with no checks and then suddenly get an average score?

Why not?

It's nonsense.

Makes sense enough to me. Just don’t conflate “task” with “check” and it’s fine.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not?

Makes sense enough to me. Just don’t conflate “task” with “check” and it’s fine.

They are already conflated by the rules. You cannot get an average number for the tasks unless those tasks have rolls. If there are no rolls for the tasks, there is no passive perception number.

 

[Charlaquin]

They are already conflated by the rules.

Not at all. Only tasks with uncertain outcomes are resolved with checks.

You cannot get an average number for the tasks unless those tasks have rolls. If there are no rolls for the tasks, there is no passive perception number.

10 is the average result on a d20 roll. 10 is also the number you add to a passive check.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. Only tasks with uncertain outcomes are resolved with checks.

10 is the average result on a d20 roll. 10 is also the number you add to a passive check.

They aren't asking for the average of a d20. They are asking for the average of the constant checks. Therefore, rolls. In any case, it's still absurd in the extreme to think that every important passive check will result in the roll of a 10. Those passive checks are uncertain and have meaningful consequences. They should be rolls, not passive.

 

[Hriston]

That's a distinction without a difference. They are doing the task(perceiving) repeatedly and then taking the average result of all those tasks. If they weren't checks, there would be no average result.

This is the oddity I was talking about. What are all these checks for? Is there a meaningful consequence of failure for each of them? If so, why aren't they being resolved separately and in sequence?

With a passive check (just like any check), there's just one check which happens when it actually matters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They aren't asking for the average of a d20. They are asking for the average of the constant checks. Therefore, rolls. In any case, it's still absurd in the extreme to think that every important passive check will result in the roll of a 10. Those passive checks are uncertain and have meaningful consequences. They should be rolls, not passive.

And you are fine to do it that way.

But you at least aren't going to convince me personally that your way is the right way, no matter how strenuously you indicate it. Because using "absurdity" as the barometer for whether rules in the game should be used or not is pointless to me, since almost every single rule in the game is absurd.

"A longsword does 1d8 damage in the hands of a 1st level newb and a 20th level master swordsman?" Ridiculous!

"A wizard owns a pouch wherein he not only is able to store incredibly small components for dozens of different spells, but also has it so organized that he can also reach in with two fingers and pull a specific one or two out of it at the same time while also saying magic words and intricate hand motions all in less than 6 seconds in order to cast a spell?" Ludicrous!

"A newb druid is able to completely polymorph themselves into any animal they want at almost the very beginning of their adventuring career, but wizards haven't be able to figure out a way to do it before they reach 7th level?" Preposterous!

"Elves live for thousands of years, but somehow only gain real power in the few years they go out on the road adventuring next to humans, where they all can go from levels 1 to 20 at the same rate in even a matter of weeks depending on the adventure the DM runs?" Laughable!

"When a character gets really exhausted... the first thing that becomes more difficult for them to do is recalling magical, religious, historical and nature lore... but things like swordfighting and walking at their normal pace can all be done without any problems whatsoever." Nonsensical!

 

[Maxperson]

This is the oddity I was talking about. What are all these checks for? Is there a meaningful consequence of failure for each of them? If so, why aren't they being resolved separately and in sequence?

With a passive check (just like any check), there's just one check which happens when it actually matters.

When it matters is when you should have to roll. Otherwise you end up with the ridiculous situation of only rolling a 10. No matter what. On every passive check, and that doesn't make any sense. There's nothing about the subconscious that implies such a regular level of ability. And if they are constantly actively checking, then there's nothing passive about the check at all.