D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[dco]

Which makes no sense for passively finding most hidden things. When you walk into a room with creatures hiding, you are most likely not making repeated checks, so your average should not be used. The same when walking past a trap or secret door. Instead, you are in a situation where only a single check is made. It would be different if you were camped on one side of a room and the secret door was on the other and you have hours to notice it.

Depends, if the players want to make perception rolls for any square or cm of the dungeon that's a very repetitive task.
This is also there:
"or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice".
Precisely the only example with passive perception involves a passive check against the stealth roll of some creatures hiding.

But my point with the average is another one, if you take a passive skill as the floor for one skill check then it can not be the average:
Average of 1d20+ mods is 10 rounded down + mods, precisely the passive skill value.
Average of 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10...20 + mods can never be the same value as the passive skill, the passive skill could never be the average of that kind of skill check.

The game according at least to the PHB uses the same game conceptions of most RPGs I've ever seen, when there is a doubt the PCs can succed or fail at something there is a check. This can encompass actions that need a lot of thinking or not, sudden memories, task that takes actions, microseconds,minutes, hours, etc. At the end of the day the book offers 3 methods for this check, normal ability checks, passive ability checks and group checks, the book never talks about using 2 or 3 of those checks at the same time for the same challenge.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but what I think some people are saying is this:
A player opens a drawer with a pair of minuscule dots of blood, DC 13 and 16, passive perception is 15 and perception 5. He could see them or not, it needs an ability check, the DM has 3 options for checks, he tells the player to roll perception check and this rolls a 4, supposedly he has failed to see any dot. But according to the podcast he should have seen one, that for me goes against what the book is saying.

 

[Maxperson]

It says "can ", not "always " or "must". It could also represent something else.

Yep. It can represent quasi-godhood, too

The ability just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Depends, if the players want to make perception rolls for any square or cm of the dungeon that's a very repetitive task.

So in this case the player is rolling from 1-20 constantly, but always happens to "roll" a 10 whenever anything is really there. Give me a break.

This is also there:
"or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice".
Precisely the only example with passive perception involves a passive check against the stealth roll of some creatures hiding.

If I want that to happen, I can roll the die. Or I will have the players roll a d20 at some during the game prior to when they hit the spot where the perception(or whatever skill) is needed and just leave it at that. Later I will use those numbers for what it they were for.

The game according at least to the PHB uses the same game conceptions of most RPGs I've ever seen, when there is a doubt the PCs can succed or fail at something there is a check. This can encompass actions that need a lot of thinking or not, sudden memories, task that takes actions, microseconds,minutes, hours, etc. At the end of the day the book offers 3 methods for this check, normal ability checks, passive ability checks and group checks, the book never talks about using 2 or 3 of those checks at the same time for the same challenge.

Crawford disagrees with this. He says passive is always on with the exception of the few actions that turn it off. It prevents you from rolling less than your passive number since you use the highest. Others here have pointed out how the book can be read to say the same thing.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but what I think some people are saying is this:
A player opens a drawer with a pair of minuscule dots of blood, DC 13 and 16, passive perception is 15 and perception 5. He could see them or not, it needs an ability check, the DM has 3 options for checks, he tells the player to roll perception check and this rolls a 4, supposedly he has failed to see any dot. But according to the podcast he should have seen one, that for me goes against what the book is saying.

No. What Crawford has said is that the passive number is the floor. So if the DC is 13 and your passive number is 15 and the DM calls for a roll, if you then roll that 5, your final number of 10 gets bumped up to your passive 15 and you succeed.

 

[nswanson27]

I don't understand this thing about different activities.
If I remember well the guy in the podcast is saying the passive skill is the floor in the case of a roll. That's applicable to the same activity or challenge. That's wrong according to the PHB.
He also says passive perception is always on, wrong again according to the PHB, because the passive check is there to substitute a dice roll, if the DM calls for dice rolls there shouldn't be any passive checks for the same thing at the same time so it can not be always on. It is clear:
"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any dice rolls...can represent the average result...or....determine whether the characters succed at something without rolling dice."
"An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when the character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure...If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success-the creature overcomes the challengeat hand. Otherwise, it's a failure,.."

There is nothing there about conscious or subsconscious activities, time or any other irrelevant metric, if there is a chance of failure to overcome a challenge there are 2 options, dice are rolled or a passive skill value is used. Not both. There is nothing there saying that you can ignore the roll and choose the passive value if your skill roll is lower than it. If we are talking about different actions and challenges it is the same thing, you apply one or the other for each one, consequently the passive skill can not be the floor for a dice roll.

They can be applicable to the same end result, but that doesn't make them the same thing. In addition to what I mentioned already. Passive covers "everything", while active only covers traps or gold or whatever they specifically search for. So passive can pick up traps as well. Just because both can pick up the same thing doesn't mean that they both can't be used. What you say about not allowing an active check if passive doesn't find the trap is nowhere in the rules. I don't know - this seems pretty clear to me. You can believe what you want about what RAW, but you haven't budged me at all that what you say is RAW.

 

[KahlessNestor]

When using passive for traps and secret doora, it represents the old "I move 10 feet checking for traps." Roll. "No? I move 10 feet check for traps." Ad nauseum.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Once again, having passive perception as the floor of a perception check only makes sense when your passive perception has already failed to spot a hidden foe or feature and you are trying again with a check to attempt to achieve a higher roll.

When a creature attempts to hide from you they make a stealth check against your passive perception, and not "your passive perception or the results of your perception check, whichever is greater".

And passive perception doesn't save any time or effort if the DM has to compare trap DCs to PP and then call for an active perception check. I know the Phandelver goblin trail trap is written as such, but that was literally the first content written for 5E and I don't think subsequent traps feature the same resolution method.

Passive perception is passive for the player (the player does not need to roll a die to determine their result) but it represents active effort on the part of the character, the same as an 'active' roll. It represents an 'average' result that can be used quickly and perhaps secretly by the DM. Using both methods simultaneously is redundant.

Using both simultaneously is doubling up on resolution methods for the same activity and choosing the best result. Rolled checks give you a high, average or low result. Passive checks give you average results. Using both methods together give you only high or average results, greatly empowering perception for no discernible benefit.

I only use passive perception as a DC for stealth checks. I don't use them as DCs to spot room features as I can't be bothered to attached DCs to everything. Features are:
*Obvious = Obvious obviously. Immediately described on entering.
*Obscured = Obvious something is there with details requiring a closer look. A shape at the bottom of a pond that turns out to be a chest. A passageway in the dark recesses of a chamber. More details with a round or two of effort.
*Concealed = Hidden in, behind or underneath something. Require investigation and effort to find. A key in a drawer, a door behind drapes, coin pouch beneath a mattress. Found with a specific action ("I move the drapes") or 1 minute of a general, unspecified search. 10 minutes will find and investigate every non-feature thing in a room.
*Secret = Something that has been purposely hidden. Requires time, investigation and effort. A key hidden in a crack between two bricks. A secret door. Generally requires 10 minutes and a skill check to find. Some might be found through clues by attentive players.

Generally, I generally ask what the PCs want to search and how much time they want to spend. They can interact and search features as desired. If they are pressed for time, I allow skill checks to find things quicker. This is pretty much how I've been doing it for 25 years. I find it the most natural approach and I don't tend to change it no matter the system or edition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When using passive for traps and secret doora, it represents the old "I move 10 feet checking for traps." Roll. "No? I move 10 feet check for traps." Ad nauseum.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

Well, that and just, being alert and on the look out for anything of interest or out of place.

Which is why it makes perfect sense as the floor of Perception checks. Your active attempts to find something can't be worse than what you see when just generally being alert.

 

[Gradine]

I find passive checks to be great tools for hints and tips, especially when I'm writing adventures where I don't know anything about the PCs that will be playing it. Passive Perception for me is never "you see a trap"; it's just an extra bit of boxed text that's gated behind a passive DC check, an extra clue that should hint to the existence of a trap. If the player wants to do a full visual sweep that's an active Perception check (I don't quite like the idea of PP being the floor to that) while a thorough physical search is an active Investigation check (I'll never quite understand what Passive Investigation is supposed to be useful for). I also use Passive Perception for plenty of other things other than traps. For example:

This small cave is where the goblin tribe's former boss, the exiles' leader, has made his lair. He has claimed what he feels is the best of the treasure for himself, including Kaeli's cash box and [Passive Perception: 17 or higher; (PC's must have a light source to succeed this check)] her keyring.

As the narrow tunnel ends it opens into a small cave where a lone goblin has fallen on its haunches, doing its best to back away from a terrifying monstrosity approaching it. Appearing as a large writing mass of tentacles, the only "body" you can identify as the center of its mass rests atop its numerous appendages; a single large, lidless, bulging eye. [A glint of (torch)light reflects off something on the goblin's belt.]​

I'll use Passive Insight for lying tells or just general mental or emotional state of NPCs. I'll also use Passive knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, Nature, History) for bits of lore or information characters might recall.

Passive checks should never give away the full story; just provide hints that PCs should be digging deeper with more active actions.

 

[iserith]

Passive checks should never give away the full story; just provide hints that PCs should be digging deeper with more active actions.

I don't see anything in the rules that would make me think that. Or that passive checks are resolving something other than "active actions." The PCs are doing stuff with uncertain outcomes otherwise there would be no check, passive or otherwise. Conflating "passive check" with passivity on the part of the PCs is in my view a big reason why folks have a hard time with these mechanics. This is why I don't use words like "active" when describing PC actions or ability checks. It's misleading. There are no "active ability checks."

The adjudication process as I see it is thus: DM describes the environment. Player describes what he or she wants to do. DM decides if the outcome is uncertain. If it's not, narrate the outcome of the adventurer's action. If it is uncertain, DM decides if the task is repetitive or ongoing based on player description. if it is, a passive check resolves. If it is not, an ability check resolves. Then the DM narrates the outcome of the adventurer's action.

 

[Gradine]

I don't see anything in the rules that would make me think that. Or that passive checks are resolving something other than "active actions." The PCs are doing stuff with uncertain outcomes otherwise there would be no check, passive or otherwise. Conflating "passive check" with passivity on the part of the PCs is in my view a big reason why folks have a hard time with these mechanics. This is why I don't use words like "active" when describing PC actions or ability checks. It's misleading. There are no "active ability checks."

BTW, this is the passive rule I generally follow:

...or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice

I'll realize that they're not meant, specifically, to represent passive "always-on" checks in the rules. But that's how I've rolled with them.

I also don't have a hard time with these mechanics at all.