D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[Mistwell]

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.

And "can" is not "must". There are other more specific rules regarding passive perception specifically which overrule the general example rule of passive checks (which is not an exhaustive list of how passive checks work, nor is it phrased as if it were).

 

[iserith]

I really strongly dislike technicality, pedantics, or any close cousin of those. An active ability check 1. has a clear, easily understood meaning, and 2. is a common phrase. Therefor, it exists. For me, that is the end of it, unless a person can, and for some unfathomable reason cares to, prove 1 or 2 to be false. And even then, I probably won't even read the argument wherein a person tries to prove such a thing, because I know it's just going to be a lot of pedantic time wasting with no bearing on common speech, which is what actually matters.

especially in a game that runs on "natural language", but even in a game like 4e. If you know what we mean, then we have used a correct term.

Personally, I avoid using the words "active" or "active ability check" in discussions about ability checks and passive checks because it can imply that a passive check isn't resolving a task the character is actually performing. In my view, this leads to confusion as to how to use the mechanic and, ultimately, dissatisfaction. So while I understand you by way of context and have no desire to debate the word and its definition, I don't think it's the best term to use for the reasons stated. Crawford's not immune to this criticism either because I think he used similar language in the podcast. Given the goal of clarification of the rule, I don't think he's doing his cause any favors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I avoid using the words "active" or "active ability check" in discussions about ability checks and passive checks because it can imply that a passive check isn't resolving a task the character is actually performing. In my view, this leads to confusion as to how to use the mechanic and, ultimately, dissatisfaction. So while I understand you by way of context and have no desire to debate the word and its definition, I don't think it's the best term to use for the reasons stated. Crawford's not immune to this criticism either because I think he used similar language in the podcast. Given the goal of clarification of the rule, I don't think he's doing his cause any favors.

I get where you're coming from. I do. I just don't think the difference is at all significant, at least in a discussion like this. I can see it with the podcast, but even then, I think it's pretty clear what he means, and that active is simply opposed to passive, and the whole thing makes perfect sense.

 

[Satyrn]

Hmm.

I just reread the rules on this and I'd swear it reads as though passive checks are passive simply because the players are not actively rolling dice.

 

[Arial Black]

I've seen a few claims like this in this thread:-

* 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.

* 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.

No. Crawford is not saying that the rules of the game are that a Perception check cannot be lower than the passive score! He is not saying that the passive score is a literal floor, RAW.

What he is saying is that the passive score is the effective floor. Not because Perception checks less than the passive score are not permitted in the rules, but because lower results are rendered irrelevant!

In the example of: "A player opens a drawer with a pair of minuscule dots of blood, DC 13 and 16, passive perception is 15 and perception 5", his passive perception already tells him about the DC 13 drop, but not the DC 16. The player sees one drop.

If the player then says that he wants to give it a more detailed look, then the player takes the Search action (if in combat, if not in combat then just saying so is enough) and rolls a Perception check. That Perception check result most certainly can be less than his passive score of 15 because the passive score is not a literal, rules-based floor! He could roll a result of, say, 9. This does not get magically increased to 15. He rolled a 9. That is not high enough to notice either blood drop!

But where the passive score is an effective floor (though not an actual floor) is that he already noticed everything that his passive score noticed. He already noticed that DC 13 blood drop, and his later result of 9 doesn't take the memory of that drop away.

That is why the passive score is effectively the floor. It is not an actual game rule that the check result cannot be less than the passive score!

 

[Psikerlord#]

The length of this thread is evidence enough to confirm that PP should be discarded, and just roll your perception, like every other skill...

 

[Mistwell]

The length of this thread is evidence enough to confirm that PP should be discarded, and just roll your perception, like every other skill...

LOL, "I disagree, many times!" is not evidence of anything other than some people disagree many times. Passive perception is part of the game, though you're free to discard it along with any other rule.

 

[Oofta]

The length of this thread is evidence enough to confirm that PP should be discarded, and just roll your perception, like every other skill...

Or is it proof that Arial Black's summation is correct? That if you weren't calling for an active perception check your players would be using passive, so use that first, which is what I do?

Or that this is something you should just decide as a DM and let everyone know how you will rule?

Or that for some topics there's never going to be 100% consensus?

 

[Maxperson]

LOL, "I disagree, many times!" is not evidence of anything other than some people disagree many times. Passive perception is part of the game, though you're free to discard it along with any other rule.

Ahh, but this is "Many people disagree, many times!" and that is evidence of something being wrong. Just look at all the things that get changed because of protests and complaints to a politician.

 

[Caliban]

The length of this thread is evidence enough to confirm that PP should be discarded, and just roll your perception, like every other skill...

Not really. It's evidence that a couple of people really don't like the way Passive Perception is handled and will argue that point until they die. And a few people like the way it is handled (and have way more patience than I do) and are willing to engage the first group as long as they want to keep talking.

A few stubborn people on an internet forum aren't "proof" of anything other than there are people out there who will argue about anything.