Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6807399" data-attributes="member: 97077">This reveals what I find to be a common misapprehension of what passive checks are for. In my initial post, I quote the rules and what they tell us is that passive checks are for resolving uncertainty as to the outcome of a particular task that is being performed repeatedly. That task must be described by the player like any other action, though sure, it's probably a common and fairly safe assumption at the table that unless the players describe some other action that is sufficiently distracting, the characters are keeping watch for hidden threats (and thus their passive Perception scores might apply to noticing hidden monsters and traps).Someone who hopes to have his or her character's passive Investigation score apply to resolving uncertainty in a repeated task similarly needs to describe what the character is doing (approach) and hopes to achieve (goal). That is so the DM can decide what, if any, rules apply and narrate the result of the adventurer's action (Basic Rules, page 3). The example of the barbarian is a good one: He is tapping everything with his maul (approach) so as to uncover illusions (goal). Here we have a character performing a task repeatedly and although outright success seems like it might be an appropriate ruling, a DM who finds the outcome is uncertain can now use the character's passive Investigation score to determine an outcome.So the questions I think the DM should ask himself or herself when adjudicating the player's stated action for the character is: (1) Is this effort successful, unsuccessful, or uncertain? and (2) If uncertain, is the character performing a task repeatedly? If the answer to (2) is Yes, then a passive check is appropriate. If the answer to (2) is no, then a normal ability check is likely a better fit.Or:While the goal of the player creating the illusion isn't stated outright, let's say it's to draw the enemy party away from the hostage. The approach is the use of minor illusion to create the voice of the enemy party's leader and have it call away the enemy party. At this point, the DM must decide whether the action is successful, unsuccessful, or has an uncertain outcome.Though we're missing a lot of context on which to base this decision, let's say for whatever reason, the DM says the outcome is uncertain. The rules tell us that when an action like this has an uncertain outcome, we use ability checks (Basic Rules, page 58). Thus, it would seem reasonable for the DM to ask the wizard to make a Charisma (Deception) check or even an Intelligence (Deception) check with an appropriate DC, perhaps with advantage for using magic to aid in the ruse. On a success, the enemies are drawn away from the hostage for a short time, leaving an opening for the PCs. On a failure, the enemies stay put as they suspect something is up. Or if you like success at a cost for failed checks, then the enemy party is drawn away, but before the PCs can take advantage of the opening, they run smack dab into the enemy party's leader, setting up a new, dramatic challenge.</blockquote>

Verification