Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="quandaratic" data-source="post: 7382448" data-attributes="member: 6945440">I’m going to offer this as a case for using the mechanic: When a player makes an Ability Check, their Passive Score for the same Skill functions as the lowest possible result for that check.I was dubious about it, at first, but I’m going to try it in my games.Disclaimer: none of this is intended as “this is right, and your fun is wrong.”  Nor is it intended as “Jeremy Crawford said it, so it has to be correct; all hail the Crawford.”  I’m just really interested in finding the maximally valid and consistent model for roleplaying a real person, then deciding what approaches are most conducive to a fun game.  …which is why I spend way too much time scrutinizing the core books.Most of it has also been stated, in various ways, over the course of this thread, but this is intended to be comprehensive.Here’s how I think this proposition works: 1) there are 3 different mechanics for Passive Checks, which are supported by the core books, and 2) they provide mechanical support for the concept that a highly-skilled character should be able to regularly achieve success at easy tasks, in easy conditions, when a Skill makes sense in a passive sense.  3) If that 2nd premise is accepted, then a highly-skilled character should also be able to succeed at easy tasks, in easy conditions, for all Skills, which would be presented by a Passive Score functioning as a minimum value for an Ability Check.…and this is honestly just the same thing as a DM deciding to fudge a Player’s bad die roll, and let them have the success, but this adds a consistent mechanic to it.Mechanic 1:A Passive Check can be made, where the single Passive Score opposes the DC of a check, instead of the results of die rolls for many Skill Checks.— Is it in the books: Yes; it’s the 1st definition of Passive Checks, in the Players Handbook.— Is it valid:     — It assumes a statistical average — that a Character whose Passive Score is 10 would yield an average result of 10, on many Ability Checks, given a sufficient number of attempts.  Here, there’s a possible invalidity, in sample size — if it’s used to represent a fairly small number of individual Ability Checks, the die rolls of those individual checks could easily yield a very different single result, from their average.    — It assumes that the narrative resolutions for each individual Ability Check, represented by the single Passive Check, should be as similar as possible.  Otherwise, it suffers the flaw, of not indicating which individual Ability Checks would have been passed and which would have been failed.— Is there a use case: Yes, for any skill that is repeated many times, but the above assumptions limit proper usage.  The similarity-of-individual-checks flaw would make a difference in the case of detecting traps and secret doors in a dungeon; the 2nd type of Passive Check is better in this case.  A case like researching all day, in a library is more of a case for this check, because it’s more feasible for the character to be taking notes, and keeping relevant books near them, and discover the same insight at any point in the 360 Ability Checks over an hour of game time, such that the narrative resolutions would be the same.Mechanic 2:A Passive Check can be made, where the single Passive Score opposes the DC of a check, instead of the Player making an Ability Check.— Is it in the books: Yes; it’s the 2nd definition of Passive Checks, in the Players Handbook.— Is it valid:     — It assumes that the Character has no knowledge of the circumstances which initiate the check.    — It assumes a level of ability in a Skill, which the Character can maintain, without having to devote particular attention to that Skill.      — It assumes that the Character can devote some attention to that Skill, because the Character is not focusing on doing something else. — Is there a use case: Yes, when the Character doesn’t know what narrative element is causing the check.  The detect-a-trap-in-a-dungeon would be a good case for this check; if the 1st mechanic is used to represent the check, it would suffer at least 1 invalidity.Mechanic 3:A Passive Check can be made, where the single Passive Score opposes the result of the DM’s die roll, for a monster/NPC/creature who is making an Ability Check.— Is it in the books: Yes, though there’s arguably a contradiction.    — The Players Handbook definition specifies “no dice are rolled” and “without rolling dice,” which would indicate that this type of check does not exist.    — However, it then provides an example of a Character noticing a hidden monster, and the DM would have rolled a Stealth Check for the monster to be hidden.    — The Players Handbook goes on specify, in the rules for hiding, in Combat, that a Dexterity(Stealth) Check opposes Passive Perception, and D&D is a game where the DM uses the same mechanics for monsters/creatures/NPCs, which the Players use for their Characters.    — The DM Guide specifies that, in non-Combat and Combat situations, for creatures which seek to perform a task which would be opposed by a PC, the DM may roll the creature’s Ability Check against the PCs Passive Score, if the Player has no knowledge of the creature or their intention.    — Why would both books establish uses of this mechanic, when the Players Handbook says that no die is rolled?  Possibly because the Players Handbook is for Players, who truly don’t roll any dice in a Passive Check.— Is it valid: the assumptions are the same as Mechanic 2Premise:Passive Checks can be made for any skill, not just for Perception.— Is it in the books: Yes; this is indicated by the language used, in the definition of Passive Checks, which is not specific to Perception, and by specific mention of other Passive Checks, especially Passive Intelligence(Investigation), in both the Players Handbook and the DM Guide.— Is it valid:     — Sometimes, depending on the particular Skill or Ability being checked.  It assumes that the particular Ability or Skill being checked, would actually make sense, in a passive sense.  Eg., a Character probably can’t climb a rope without devoting their attention to that task; this would be a case for Passive Athletics, but doesn’t really made sense.— Is there a use case:    — In the 1st mechanic, yes.    — For the 2nd and 3rd mechanics, also yes.  The case of Passive Intelligence (Investigation) is documented, but it makes sense that any Skill or Ability that can have a passive function could be used in the same way.  I think there are strong cases for Insight and Survival, and for general WIS, INT, CHA, and CON checks.Conclusion:Separately, each mechanic for Passive Checks has flaws.  Together, though, they allow Characters to succeed at easy (sometimes moderate) tasks, without rolling a die, which eliminates the possibility of failures due to a bad roll.  If these checks applied all the time, then the resulting auto-successes would be invalid.  However, the Passive Check mechanics have sufficient limitations to their application, that they would only be used when the narrative supports an easy win for the Character.So, a Passive Check should be used:- only when it’s the right type of Passive Check.- only when the Character isn’t focused on a different activity.- only when the Character’s ability to perform that skill isn’t being limited by a Condition.- only when the Skill makes sense in a passive sense (for the 2nd and 3rd mechanics).- only when the narrative resolutions should be the same for each Ability Check represented (for the 1st mechanic).…basically, in conditions which are sensical and favorable.  In those constraints, the numbers play out as auto-successes for Easy DC Challenges, and only sometimes for Moderate DC Challenges.  It would take a Character with Ability Modifier and Proficiency Bonuses of +3 and +2, to auto-succeed a Moderate Challenge.  So, we’re talking about Characters with very high Ability Scores (or good Ability Scores at higher level), who are proficient at the Skill which is being checked.  Average would not auto-succeed a Moderate Challenge, without Advantage, and a Character with no Proficiency Bonus and a negative Ability Modifier would even auto-fail Easy Challenges.  With Disadvantage, many Characters with multiple bonuses to the check would fail the same Easy Challenge.  Narratively, it still takes special skill to do special things, and reliably avoid botching those efforts.…then, the next step.Premise:Used together, and in appropriate narrative situations, Passive Checks provide a valid framework to represent the concept, that a highly-skilled Character should be able to regularly succeed at easy tasks, even if their Player rolls really low results on their rolls.Premise:A highly-skilled Character should be more able to achieve regular success at easy tasks, when they are focusing at their task, than when they are not focusing on their task.Conclusion:When a Player makes an Ability Check, the Character’s Passive Score for that Ability or Skill may be used as a minimum value for that Ability Check.Is it in the books: No, not that I can find.Is it valid: If the 1st premise is valid, it seems so.  There is a weak point for the 3rd mechanic, and any DM would be justified in rejecting this concept because of the Player’s Handbook plainly stating “no die is rolled.”  However, that contradiction works against both proving and disproving this thesis, since it has to be ignored, either way.Whether or not this whole thing is valid really rests on a single subjectivity for the DM:Do you believe that a Character, who is supposed to be an expert in a particular skill, should be able to auto-succeed an easy check, in that skill, if they have plenty of time, are not being distracted by some other task, and are not suffering some condition which limits their ability?Should the wizard, of able mind, taking a few minutes to survey their surroundings, be able to pass an Intelligence Check, to deduce a crucial insight, even if their Player rolls a 2?  A 5th-level wizard with an Intelligence score of 19 would still fail a DC 10 check, after adding the ability modifier of +4, and proficiency bonus of +3, which means that the brains of the group just couldn’t think of the easy answer, for no narrative reason.It is totally acceptable, if the answer is “no, this concept is neither valid nor conducive to my gameplay.”  This is just a proposition.I’m going to try out this mechanic, just for the idea of letting smart Characters be smart, strong Character be strong, and heroes be heroes.</blockquote>

Verification