D&D 5E Passive: It's not Just Perception - Passive Skill Checks

[iserith]

Well, not sure I want to give too many spoilers, but Grog was very much roleplaying the not so smart barbarian looking for a quick fix to the massive problem the party was facing and it was clearly telegraphed that the skull wasn't very kosher. They could have traded one problem for another or compounded the problem and made it worse. There was some of the best rp of the show in that scene.

I think the question remains as I stated it: Would it have been fun for everyone and contributed to an exciting, memorable story if Grog had just been successful at smashing the skull without a roll? I don't watch the show, but it's probably a safe bet that, yes, it would have been, even if the consequence of doing so was bad for the party.

 

[iserith]

Yes and no. Remember, since this is at DM discretion, there may be times when something that, in and of itself the PC should be able to do, that may call for a roll even if they would normally pass with a passive check. This can be used to great dramatic effect. In the end though, unless you tell the character they just passed a passive check, they wont know one way or the other.

One of the big benefits to be found with increased use of passive checks is that it subtly rewards players for building their characters to include something other than just combat-centric skills.

I always tell the players when I'm using a passive check, what the stakes are (when it's not obvious), and what the DC is. If I did care about players building their characters to include "something other than just combat-centric skils" (I don't), why would I want to be subtle about it? I would think if this was my goal, I would let it be known.

It's also very handy for putting players on the spot to develop their characters a little and/or improv. Let's take the example above. Lets say the Arcana check in question was about the magical properties of troll fat, as an alchemy ingredient. You can tell your the player that their character recognizes X about troll fact, then make them explain how their character knows that.

No check is required for this particular technique though. I do it all the time without checks.

Here are the questions I ask myself after a player clearly states an approach to a goal: (1) Does the proposed action have an uncertain outcome, that is, it's not definitely success or definitely failure? (2) Is the fictional action described a task being performed repeatedly? If the answer to both questions is "Yes," then I set a DC and use a passive check to determine a result. If the answer to (1) is "Yes," and the answer to (2) is "No," then it's an ability check. If the answer to (1) is "No," then the character just succeeds or fails outright and I narrate the result.

 

[Rhenny]

I rarely use passive checks. If I do, they are most likely for just perception, and often, I have the opposing creature or even object roll rather than setting a DC so that even the highest passive perception pcs can fail once in a while and sometimes even the low passive perceptions can get lucky.

But for the most part, I'm a fan of what iserith proposes. In general, I try to frame a situation and then let each player tell me what his or her pc does or attempts in narrative. Then I decide if a roll is necessary. For when I know the players really like to roll dice rather than just play a narrative game, I will often tell them to make checks for some of the easier actions/attempts, but instead of setting a DC, I basically just tell them all they need to roll is higher than a 1. You'd be surprised at how much tension even just that small chance of failure engenders.

As for the Critical Role situation that KahlessNestor mentions, I agree with KahlessNestor. Those guys are voice actors who thrive on improv and dealing with curveballs. Grog's fumble and failure to break the skull did yield excellent results for the story/rp. In general, I really like what Matt Mercer and the Critical Role players do.

Overall, I think the decision to call for a roll, use passive skills/perception, etc. really comes down to what the players like better. In my experience, most players like to take the dice into their own hands, but they don't mind automatically succeeding on reasonable tasks when those tasks align with their character concepts (background, class, attributes, etc.)

 

[Psikerlord#]

I dislike passive greatly. If there is a check to be made, roll some dice and find out what happens. Taking out the randomness is a mistake, imo - esp "the same PC always spots everything" problem, and the "vs static Trap DCs" problem, the whole passive mechanic falls down (imo - there's been many discussions on this already).

The two reasons for possibly using passive: (i) not tipping off players to an ambush/trap etc just by rolling, and (ii) stopping players attempting an action again and again until they roll a 20 (or otherwise succeed), are better avoided using other methods.

(i) If you need a "secret" check, and dont want to tip off the players, use a phone dice roller, or whatever.

(ii) As for retrying things again and again, just use the rule that you cannot try again unless something changed in your favour.

The only possible passive I dont mind is "knowledge" style checks - but then, it isnt really the "passive score" that I'm using - rather, if they have the releveant skill or background, the PC simply knows the info, without needing to make a check.

Course, I understand why some DMs (and players) like the predictability and simplicity. I just find the cons outweigh the benefits.

 

[iserith]

As for the Critical Role situation that KahlessNestor mentions, I agree with KahlessNestor. Those guys are voice actors who thrive on improv and dealing with curveballs. Grog's fumble and failure to break the skull did yield excellent results for the story/rp. In general, I really like what Matt Mercer and the Critical Role players do.

Even so, what would you say to the question I posed here?

 

[Rhenny]

Even so, what would you say to the question I posed here?

I have no doubt that in the same situation in your games (even my games), the DM could rule that Grog automatically succeeds at smashing the skull, and the outcome would be equally interesting and provocative for the story. What that character wanted to do seemed perfectly reasonable giving that he was a strong, Goliath barbarian and he was playing his character well in regards to his attributes and other factors (...his newly found evil sword may have been influencing him as well).

I just think that in Matt Mercer's campaign, because of the way he runs the game and the way that he and the players seem to thrive on uncertainty and randomness, it fits that he would call for a roll at a pivotal moment, even if it seems all but assured that Grog should be able to smash the skull.

I know, Iserith, I sound like I'm sitting on the fence, but really I do think it comes down to how much each particular group wants to rely on randomness.

 

[Rhenny]

Except that they then would have missed out on great RP following Grog's fumble, not to mention possibly kept them from releasing a BBEG.

I don't think it is as much that they would have missed out on roleplaying since they are professional actors who thrive on playing roles and I'm sure they would have continued to roleplay as powerfully if Grog did smash the skull, but I do agree with you that given the way Matt Mercer runs his games, they all do expect a certain amount of randomness so Matt's call for Grog to make a check (even though it seemed all but assured Grog should be able to smash the skull) is consistent and it gives their group the amount of randomness they want or have grown to expect.

 

[Salamandyr]

No passive skill checks...at lease on the players side, and that includes perception.

On the other hand, the NPC's are always passive-to the extent that their roll is always 10+modifier.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

(i) If you need a "secret" check, and dont want to tip off the players, use a phone dice roller, or whatever.

Or even better, get in a habit of rolling dice randomly behind the screen. That way they won't know if you are actually rolling something meaningful or just playing with your dice.

Although I run game online now, so keeping my dice secret is just a matter of convenience (I don't fudge). If I were meeting in person I might just roll everything out in the open.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I have no doubt that in the same situation in your games (even my games), the DM could rule that Grog automatically succeeds at smashing the skull, and the outcome would be equally interesting and provocative for the story. What that character wanted to do seemed perfectly reasonable giving that he was a strong, Goliath barbarian and he was playing his character well in regards to his attributes and other factors (...his newly found evil sword may have been influencing him as well).

I just think that in Matt Mercer's campaign, because of the way he runs the game and the way that he and the players seem to thrive on uncertainty and randomness, it fits that he would call for a roll at a pivotal moment, even if it seems all but assured that Grog should be able to smash the skull.

I know, Iserith, I sound like I'm sitting on the fence, but really I do think it comes down to how much each particular group wants to rely on randomness.

There's also the fact that Vax and Percy were very actively trying to stop him, through argument, deception, and eventually some brief pvp. To have Grog auto-succeed would have broken all that delicious rp tension and nullified their efforts for what? A piddly saving of time? To play "by the rules"? Everyone expected it to smash and something really bad to happen. I know that sitting and watching I was very audible in my relief and laughter at the fumble and subsequent rp. One of the most amazing and pivotal character moments in the show that really probably wouldn't have happened if he hadn't fumbled (though I'm very sure Matt had something awesome planned).