useless for Perception maybe. By RAW, the other skills don't have "Passive" versions, so Reliable Talent still applies to those.
D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth
useless for Perception maybe. By RAW, the other skills don't have "Passive" versions, so Reliable Talent still applies to those.
Rya.Reisender
Explorer
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that generally checking a room might reveal less information than checking something specific in a room.
So what I think makes most sense is to apply passive perception to generally checking a room only.
So what I think makes most sense is to apply passive perception to generally checking a room only.
I like where he mentions that you only reveal yourself "when you hit or miss with an attack". I have seen a lot of people on here say that revealing yourself to attack automatically gets rid of hidden, so you get no benefit. I didn't even notice the passage he mentions in the Combat section.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
That is not correct. Every skill can be used passively. Only perception is used frequently.
Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app
Li Shenron
Legend
Not that I have ever been a fan of Passive Perception, but I think Crawford's advice it's one valid option (but definitely not the only one).
The way I've run perception so far is technically without using passive perception, but practically many times I just let the character succeed, if I think something is just impossible to miss, especially as a group.
I don't think there is only one "right" way to handle perception. These are just equally valid options:
a) Always roll, unless you notice that even a natural 20 would not beat the DC or a natural 1 would always do. Ignore Passive Perception.
b) Roll sometimes, grant autosuccess or autofailure some other times, based on narrative. Ignore Passive Perception.
c) Roll sometimes, use Passive Perception some other times, based on narrative.
d) Always use Passive Perception when it's enough, roll only when it's not enough (Crawford's method).
Crawford's method is quite simple and regular, so it will work well for gaming groups which don't like the DM to make subjective rulings.
I don't think your DM did it wrong. It's true that invisible doesn't automatically mean you don't know where it is, but IMHO this is too much situational to be blanket-ruled like Crawford suggests. "Invisible creatures give themselves away by making noise and interacting with the environment" is simply false in the general case, since a creature doesn't have to make noise and interact with the environment all the time! You can of course decide that the creature needs a Stealth check to avoid making noise and interacting with the environment if you want, but for most creatures it's hard to believe that simply standing still would not be enough to avoid the (typically large) probability of failure of a Stealth check.
Even in combat, where it's more reasonable to say the creature can't avoid noise and environment interactions, it's totally fine to rule that an invisible creature is not automatically pinpointed. It just depends... probably easy to know where it is if you're on sand or mud, but if you're on a solid stone floor? What if the creature is flying or hovering? I don't think I'd even allow opportunity attacks against such an invisible opponent.
If really "your perception checks can never be worse than your passive perception" is meant literally, then you are right and Reliable Talent is useless for Perception.
If the above rule is intended for every ability check and not just Perception (considering that the PHB passive checks rules aren't limited to specific skills), then Reliable Talent is always useless.
On the other hand, the PHB says about passive checks: "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." The focus here is on something repetitive/routine (like being alert for hidden monsters all the time), so at least it doesn't suggest to use passive checks always. At least not for a lot of skills! Disarming a trap, socially interacting with NPC, performing an athletic or acrobatic stunt and various other skills are practically never repetitive/routine, they are instead always ad-hoc with a specific current target.
Skills that are naturally repetitive (or "passive" as in "active all the time") are pretty much only Perception and Insight. You might arguably also advocate that knowledge-type skills are also active all the time, although knowledge skills have their own special implications when allowed to use passively (basically granting a potentially massive amount of knowledge to everyone, which is why I normally always require rolls for knowledge and often just declare an autofailure if non-proficient). All other skills are rarely if ever repetitive, so Reliable Talent should stay safely useful even when using Crawford's approach, just not for Perception and Insight.
The way I've run perception so far is technically without using passive perception, but practically many times I just let the character succeed, if I think something is just impossible to miss, especially as a group.
I don't think there is only one "right" way to handle perception. These are just equally valid options:
a) Always roll, unless you notice that even a natural 20 would not beat the DC or a natural 1 would always do. Ignore Passive Perception.
b) Roll sometimes, grant autosuccess or autofailure some other times, based on narrative. Ignore Passive Perception.
c) Roll sometimes, use Passive Perception some other times, based on narrative.
d) Always use Passive Perception when it's enough, roll only when it's not enough (Crawford's method).
Crawford's method is quite simple and regular, so it will work well for gaming groups which don't like the DM to make subjective rulings.
I don't think your DM did it wrong. It's true that invisible doesn't automatically mean you don't know where it is, but IMHO this is too much situational to be blanket-ruled like Crawford suggests. "Invisible creatures give themselves away by making noise and interacting with the environment" is simply false in the general case, since a creature doesn't have to make noise and interact with the environment all the time! You can of course decide that the creature needs a Stealth check to avoid making noise and interacting with the environment if you want, but for most creatures it's hard to believe that simply standing still would not be enough to avoid the (typically large) probability of failure of a Stealth check.
Even in combat, where it's more reasonable to say the creature can't avoid noise and environment interactions, it's totally fine to rule that an invisible creature is not automatically pinpointed. It just depends... probably easy to know where it is if you're on sand or mud, but if you're on a solid stone floor? What if the creature is flying or hovering? I don't think I'd even allow opportunity attacks against such an invisible opponent.
If really "your perception checks can never be worse than your passive perception" is meant literally, then you are right and Reliable Talent is useless for Perception.
If the above rule is intended for every ability check and not just Perception (considering that the PHB passive checks rules aren't limited to specific skills), then Reliable Talent is always useless.
On the other hand, the PHB says about passive checks: "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." The focus here is on something repetitive/routine (like being alert for hidden monsters all the time), so at least it doesn't suggest to use passive checks always. At least not for a lot of skills! Disarming a trap, socially interacting with NPC, performing an athletic or acrobatic stunt and various other skills are practically never repetitive/routine, they are instead always ad-hoc with a specific current target.
Skills that are naturally repetitive (or "passive" as in "active all the time") are pretty much only Perception and Insight. You might arguably also advocate that knowledge-type skills are also active all the time, although knowledge skills have their own special implications when allowed to use passively (basically granting a potentially massive amount of knowledge to everyone, which is why I normally always require rolls for knowledge and often just declare an autofailure if non-proficient). All other skills are rarely if ever repetitive, so Reliable Talent should stay safely useful even when using Crawford's approach, just not for Perception and Insight.
Rya.Reisender
Explorer
Every skill can be used passively, but passive perception works differently compared to all other passive values.
daviddalbec
Explorer
Idk, he wasn't clear enough. If passive perception is a floor for your perception skill, and if passive checks can be used for any skill, then I guess in many situations, everyone has that 10th lvl rogue feature. The problem is that what he just said doesn't seem to be specifically written anywhere distinguishing this to be specifically about perception checks. "Hiding" on PHB 177 doesnt seem to suggest what he said either. "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."
Later
"When you hide, there’s a chance
someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score"
It says use passive when dealing with a creature that isn't actively searching, nothing about as a floor which you can default to when using the active check.
This is what it does say,
"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
Then about when to call for active perception checks, "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might *otherwise overlook*.In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."
Trying to justify Craeford - I guess, if you know there is an invisible creature in the room and try to find it every turn it'd be "a task done repeatedly", and you'd searching for it "over and over again" in accordance with the bit about Passive Checks in general. Even still, so is this applicable if I talk to someone and repeatedly try to persuade/decieve them that PC has a longdong, then I can just use 10+mods for the calculation and not roll? Or even better, roll and take the better of my roll or my passive persuade, I suppose for each occurence of my trying to convince someone of my longdong? It's really stepping on that rogue feature, or worse the 8th lvl Glibness spell.
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an *action* (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
So here's what I'm seeing (and I don't know why by RAW and Crawford's input, this wouldn't apply to all checks/passives, not just perception). There are maybe 4 different cases?
1. A character's passive perception might find a creature, in which case you don't use your *action* to search for it, because you know it is there.
2. You do not find it with passive, and also never know it is there, which would mean you as a player would not know to use your action to search.
3. You know a creature is there, perhaps you saw it hide behind a stone, in a cabinet or cast invisibility, or you have insider info that it is around, but you (with passive) can't detect it. You'd likely use your *action* to search for it. In this case you can get up to 10 points higher (or 5 higher if you have Observant Feat) on perception than your passive, and maybe reveal the hidden thing. I guess that rogue feature of rounding up to 10 probably doesnt matter here?
4. Some situation, such as an specific item being hid in a desk as in the PHB example, you need to be specific about your actions and *actively* interact such that a passive skill doesn't apply. So something not "the average result of a task done repeatedly" and of course not something secret. It'd have to be something accute and novel. I think only in these case, by the rules, do you *have* to use an active check at all, and furthermore a passive cannot be used. Something like "Your passive doesnt find the gnome in this room - I roll active trying to look closer (nat 20) - you still don't find him (he isnt *detectable * from there) - I check inside the chest under the desk (roll 10) - you press your ear up to it and hear breathing" in this case the rogue feature and such do something and the passive does nothing.
Applies to insight?
1. You detect someone is lying/nervous/upset/etc. using passive.
2. You don't detect this using passive and don't use active because you're character has no reason to suspect so.
3. You don't detect this passively, but know that, maybe the person is claiming something contrary to what you think is reality (maybe lying), or you have heard that this person is known to lie. Even still, things like that rogue feature of taking 10 don't seem to matter, since it'd just be the same as your passive (unless there are other mods Im not thinking of).
4. You fail in all attempts to uncover whether he is lying, despite believing he is saying inconsistencies and attempt a Bugs Bunny "yes it is - no it's not - yes it is - no it's not - no it's not - yes it is" trick, then make out his reaction to his communicitive stumble.
According to Crawford, I believe my 1-3 examples are correct rulings. IMO my #4's are weak examples and pretty fringe. But, it's the best I could come up with to describe types of situations where one could NOT rely on passive checks at all...
Later
"When you hide, there’s a chance
someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score"
It says use passive when dealing with a creature that isn't actively searching, nothing about as a floor which you can default to when using the active check.
This is what it does say,
"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
Then about when to call for active perception checks, "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might *otherwise overlook*.In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."
Trying to justify Craeford - I guess, if you know there is an invisible creature in the room and try to find it every turn it'd be "a task done repeatedly", and you'd searching for it "over and over again" in accordance with the bit about Passive Checks in general. Even still, so is this applicable if I talk to someone and repeatedly try to persuade/decieve them that PC has a longdong, then I can just use 10+mods for the calculation and not roll? Or even better, roll and take the better of my roll or my passive persuade, I suppose for each occurence of my trying to convince someone of my longdong? It's really stepping on that rogue feature, or worse the 8th lvl Glibness spell.
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an *action* (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
So here's what I'm seeing (and I don't know why by RAW and Crawford's input, this wouldn't apply to all checks/passives, not just perception). There are maybe 4 different cases?
1. A character's passive perception might find a creature, in which case you don't use your *action* to search for it, because you know it is there.
2. You do not find it with passive, and also never know it is there, which would mean you as a player would not know to use your action to search.
3. You know a creature is there, perhaps you saw it hide behind a stone, in a cabinet or cast invisibility, or you have insider info that it is around, but you (with passive) can't detect it. You'd likely use your *action* to search for it. In this case you can get up to 10 points higher (or 5 higher if you have Observant Feat) on perception than your passive, and maybe reveal the hidden thing. I guess that rogue feature of rounding up to 10 probably doesnt matter here?
4. Some situation, such as an specific item being hid in a desk as in the PHB example, you need to be specific about your actions and *actively* interact such that a passive skill doesn't apply. So something not "the average result of a task done repeatedly" and of course not something secret. It'd have to be something accute and novel. I think only in these case, by the rules, do you *have* to use an active check at all, and furthermore a passive cannot be used. Something like "Your passive doesnt find the gnome in this room - I roll active trying to look closer (nat 20) - you still don't find him (he isnt *detectable * from there) - I check inside the chest under the desk (roll 10) - you press your ear up to it and hear breathing" in this case the rogue feature and such do something and the passive does nothing.
Applies to insight?
1. You detect someone is lying/nervous/upset/etc. using passive.
2. You don't detect this using passive and don't use active because you're character has no reason to suspect so.
3. You don't detect this passively, but know that, maybe the person is claiming something contrary to what you think is reality (maybe lying), or you have heard that this person is known to lie. Even still, things like that rogue feature of taking 10 don't seem to matter, since it'd just be the same as your passive (unless there are other mods Im not thinking of).
4. You fail in all attempts to uncover whether he is lying, despite believing he is saying inconsistencies and attempt a Bugs Bunny "yes it is - no it's not - yes it is - no it's not - no it's not - yes it is" trick, then make out his reaction to his communicitive stumble.
According to Crawford, I believe my 1-3 examples are correct rulings. IMO my #4's are weak examples and pretty fringe. But, it's the best I could come up with to describe types of situations where one could NOT rely on passive checks at all...
Last edited:
SmokeyCriminal
Explorer
Wouldn't Reliable Talent nullify the -5 from Disadvantage from dim light or any other source of Disadvantage when using Passive Perception, or when using any other Skill Passively? So it should still be useful.
daviddalbec
Explorer
" In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight." Passive and active have disadvantage (equating to statistical -5). There are still a number of cases when Reliable Talent is useful by the rules, and that number depends a lot on the DM, and especially when you're in a stressful, unique, and/or time sensitive situation where passive skills are inappropriate. I supose that is what Crawford was pressing at when he was talking about hiding and vision.
Edit: Oh right, so it would negate some effects of disadvantage, but it is still like 25% chance of rolling above a 10 with DA and Reliable does nothing about that.
Edit: Oh right, so it would negate some effects of disadvantage, but it is still like 25% chance of rolling above a 10 with DA and Reliable does nothing about that.
Last edited:
Quickleaf
Legend
I really like your approach, and I think that's the direction I lean as well.
Do you have a concrete example you could share?
Similar Threads
- Locked
