In the section you quoted directly above this, [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] actually says "Anyone can choose to change the rules and I'm saying there's nothing wrong with running it differently at your table."
D&D 5E Understanding Passive Checks
In the section you quoted directly above this, [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] actually says "Anyone can choose to change the rules and I'm saying there's nothing wrong with running it differently at your table."
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
That answer that then. Thanks.
You still need to be actively looking, for the DM to apply the passive check to see if you succeed. If the DC is greater than your PP score, perhaps the DM can give you the chance to actively roll to perceive it, but you would be doing so with no greater chance of doing so than if you did not have the observant feat; in both cases you would need to beat a 15 at least. I suppose this is just the limitation to the feat.
Or perhaps another way to play it, is that if your DM does give you the chance to actively roll for something that is obviously more difficult than the passive check (even given the feat's bonus) suggests you succeed in finding, then you would be concentrating so much on finding it, that you would be given advantage and would just have to beat a 10 (at least) rather than 15.
Weiley31
Legend
Rogue sitting there at the table, with a sad face, after rolling a Nat 20 on the stealth check.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
This is an interesting one to cycle back around to. Though the OP is 5 years old, the point raised therein is still very relevant now. Perhaps even more relevant, in light of the (IMO absurd) Crawford ruling that passive perception acts as a floor in the result of Wisdom (Perception) checks.
Rhenny
Adventurer
I hate auto succeed passive checks. Sometimes, I make random rolls vs passive perception so it isn’t always automatic. For example, if the adventure, or if I set a DC of 15, I roll a d20 and add 5 to determine if a passive check works.
But honestly, sometimes I forget about passive checks completely. Sometimes I just ask the closest PC to make a check.
But honestly, sometimes I forget about passive checks completely. Sometimes I just ask the closest PC to make a check.
This is why I've used Mearls suggestion: a creature's Passive score is the DC for the door/trap/creature to roll against. Comparing two static numbers is boring as crap, determining the outcome during the adventure design stage. By having the secret door roll against the passive perception, you still have a roll, but the players are unaware.
Interesting note: the only example of using Passive skills in the core rulebooks is in the rules for Hiding, which works exactly as Mearls suggested. The comparison of static scores is a holdover from 4E that was never put in the rules.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It’s only determining the outcome during the design stage if you both know the characters’ passive scores and they are always applying them. If you don’t know them, and/or if you do as Iserith suggests and rule that a character has to be continually engaged in an activity (and not engaged in other activities) to make a passive check, then the problem resolves itself.
Yeah, in the case of stealth vs. passive perception, passive perception functions more like a non-AC-defense. I’ll also use NPCs’ passive Wisdom (Insight) as DCs for social actions against them.
tommybahama
Adventurer
Why do you consider it absurd that the pp is the floor?
