D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[iserith]

Well yeah, there's that, too.

which is another strike against PP vs static DC for me. If I've described a likely trap and the players ignore it and soldier on through the kill zone, the players' obliviousness is also the character's.

It's still fair though in my view because the player has made two informed decisions to get to that point. The first decision was what general task the character is doing while traveling the adventure location ("keeping watch for hidden danger"). The second decision was to do anything other than investigate the clue. So I can sleep easy knowing that I set up a fair situation and, of course, have pleasant dreams about any subsequent character deaths that occurred.

But then, I try not to use conventional traps. Rather doing things like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the players know that boulder is coming loose, but they really really want that idol - let's see if their plan works! And if not, we get a chase scene.

That's my preference too. There's only so much awesome you can wring out of pit trap covered with a painted canvas, you know?

I'm also not inclined to use ambushes. When I have used them, it's been like an ambush from an episode of Hercules, where Kevin Sorbo and Jester Iolus are mugged by school students in disguise at the start of the episode: Just a fun little fight to amuse the audience and introduce this week's antagonists, but nothing that makes the good guys sweat. So missing out on a round of action because you didn't see it coming really won't hurt.

So I recommended not worrying about your Perception score if I'm ever DMing. It's not a priority for my style.

When I kill a PC, I want them to see it coming.

It's pretty rare for ambushes to occur in my game as well.

 

[dco]

Yet several people say they've already been running it the way he talks about, based on their reading of the rules. But you claim it doesn't follow the rules, despite one of the game designers (who worked on this specific portion of the rules) and several DM's saying that in fact it does.

So no one can read the rules properly except you? What hubris.

From the book:
"A passive check is a special kind of abilily check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly..."
Average is not minimum.

 

[Satyrn]

That's my preference too. There's only so much awesome you can wring out of pit trap covered with a painted canvas, you know?

Those are things I put in a room where I know there's likely to be combat.

My players still have never seen my favorite example, though

It's a door with some magical fireball glyph that's set off when the door's opened. There's also a fairly obvious secret door right beside it. The trap's not so much meant to be used against the players. Rather, I set it up after reading the Thamateurgy cantrip's bit about opening doors and figured it'd be a cool way to let a cleric fireball the kobolds in the room.

But also, behind the door there's a young red dragon, who - immune to fire - could make highly effective use of it.



What I'm getting at is that canvas covered pit trap would be awesome in a room with a couple ogre luchadores.

 

[Caliban]

From the book:
"A passive check is a special kind of abilily check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly..."
Average is not minimum.

Since you aren't making any die rolls it is exactly that in this context. It is also the maximum, unless you stop taking the theoretical average and start perceiving actively - in which case it's kind of hard to notice less things than you've already perceived, but it may be possible to notice more.

This isn't a hard concept, and completely in line with the stated rules.

If you disagree with it, fine. Your game, your rules.

The hubris comes in when you declare the very concept "absurd and laughable" and "nonsense" - in the face of both the game designer and several other DM's who all read it the same way.

(FYI, I'm not one of them, but I can see where they are coming from and will try running it that way to see if I like it or not.)

 

[dco]

Since you aren't making any die rolls it is exactly that in this context. It is also the maximum, unless you stop taking the theoretical average and start perceiving actively - in which case it's kind of hard to notice less things than you've already perceived, but it may be possible to notice more.

This isn't a hard concept, and completely in line with the stated rules.

If you disagree with it, fine. Your game, your rules.

The hubris comes in when you declare the very concept "absurd and laughable" and "nonsense" - in the face of both the game designer and several other DM's who all read it the same way.

(FYI, I'm not one of them, but I can see where they are coming from and will try running it that way to see if I like it or not.)

Not sure what is so hard to understand.
If you consider it is always on then people will roll dice at some time and it can not be the average.
But according to the book it is the alternative to rolling dice and it is the only way it makes sense. It says it represents a result, not a new chance, if you let the players to use the passive value and at the same time skills rolls the players could ask to roll dice repeteadly, at least they would have a chance when the DC is higher than their passive value. That would erode precisely the only purpose passive checks can have.

 

[Caliban]

Not sure what is so hard to understand.
If you consider it is always on then people will roll dice at some time and it can not be the average.
But according to the book it is the alternative to rolling dice and it is the only way it makes sense. It says it represents a result, not a new chance, if you let the players to use the passive value and at the same time skills rolls the players could ask to roll dice repeteadly, at least they would have a chance when the DC is higher than their passive value. That would erode precisely the only purpose passive checks can have.

You've already declared yourself correct and everyone else an idiot, so I see little point in debating it with you. Good day.

 

[nswanson27]

Not sure what is so hard to understand.
If you consider it is always on then people will roll dice at some time and it can not be the average.
But according to the book it is the alternative to rolling dice and it is the only way it makes sense. It says it represents a result, not a new chance, if you let the players to use the passive value and at the same time skills rolls the players could ask to roll dice repeteadly, at least they would have a chance when the DC is higher than their passive value. That would erode precisely the only purpose passive checks can have.

There's a difference between something passively catching your eye and actively trying to find something. Both can cause you to notice something, but that doesn't make them repetitions of the same thing. One makes sense to use your action to do, the other does not.

 

[dco]

You've already declared yourself correct and everyone else and idiot, so I see little point in debating it with you. Good day.

I've only said I find it absurd and laughable. I will not try to value the reading comprehension and math problems of some people.

There's a difference between something passively catching your eye and actively trying to find something. Both can cause you to notice something, but that doesn't make them repetitions of the same thing. One makes sense to use your action to do, the other does not.

I'm talking about game terms.
The PHB is clear, "can represent the average result...when DM wants to secretely determine wether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice".
If you use passive skill you obtain a result, 10+modifiers, that value determines if they succeed or not, if you let them roll after using a passive skill then you are giving them a re-roll or a re-try. It is fine if a DM wants to give more chances to the players, it is another thing to claim that the PHB is saying those re-rolls are mandatory and they way it should be played, because there is no support for that claim.

 

[Caliban]

I've only said I find it absurd and laughable. I will not try to value the reading comprehension and math problems of some people.

I said "Good Day, Sir!".

 

[nswanson27]

I've only said I find it absurd and laughable. I will not try to value the reading comprehension and math problems of some people.


I'm talking about game terms.
The PHB is clear, "can represent the average result...when DM wants to secretely determine wether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice".
If you use passive skill you obtain a result, 10+modifiers, that value determines if they succeed or not, if you let them roll after using a passive skill then you are giving them a re-roll or a re-try. It is fine if a DM wants to give more chances to the players, it is another thing to claim that the PHB is saying those re-rolls are mandatory and they way it should be played, because there is no support for that claim.

Again, passive and active are two different activities, even though they aim for the same goal. You're right, the PBB isn't implying re-rolls, but this isn't a re-roll.