Passive Skills (perception, insight, knowledge, streetwise, etc.)

[lectric]

If they are not actively using them (i.e. they come upon a trapped door but do not state that they are searching for traps), then the passive scores should be checked to see if they notice whatever is going on.

I put this in a new thread, to keep the Errata thread clean.

I have a house rule about passive perception/insight & passive knowledge, because to me the idea is unrealistic. No matter how good Tordek's Perception skill, if he's out picking flowers, instead of riding in watchful and stony silence like a good D&D character should, he just might not notice the kobold lurking in the bushes....

So, if a PC's Passive Perception beats the DC, whether they are paying attention or not, they automatically get a roll. This encourages paying attention. If someone with a really crappy Passive Perception is paying attention, like they should (e.g. "as I ride in watchful and stony silence, I scan the bushes for signs of movement"), they get a perception roll. This encourages players to think and use their skills.

Same with knowledge checks. If passive knowledge (or streetwise or whatever) beats the DC, they get a free roll, whether they are looking or not. If the player doesn't ask "what do I know about this monster?", why should I automatically tell them anything about the monster?

In most cases, if the passive skill beats the DC, and the character is at least paying attention, it's an automatic success.

That's my 2 cp on passive skills. I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this.

 

[roderickvd]

I agree with you, yet do follow the PHB rules. The reason I agree is that it seems more realistic and challenging for the players. The reason I don't do it is to propel the story and make sure the players don't derail.

My players are really liking WotBS, in part because they think it's high-paced and touches on something that's bigger than them. That is in no small part due to the clues they're getting from their passive skills.

Finally, I tell my players that they catch the clues because of their high skill modifier. That way they feel rewarded by the choices they made during character creation.

 

[scrubkai]

I like the rule because I find it very hard to determine who is really paying attention and who isn't.

Some situations are obvious (When you are sleeping, busy dancing, etc.) but most of the time I can't tell. Yes I'm talking to you, but does that mean I'm not watching for people out of the corner of my eye?
After having watched my little kids for a number of years, I'm now very good at both knowing exactly what they are doing and working on something else at the same time. So who is to say that a character actually trained to be perceptive isn't doing the same thing.

Plus it really does make my game faster. I make them roll if I think they might be distracted, but all else being equal, I just run off the passive numbers most of the time.

 

[Vengar]

I use passive checks strictly for Perception and Insight checks where the PCs do not state that they are actively "sensing", and I think it makes perfect sense to do so.

If, for every Perception check, I say "Roll your Perception", the players immediately know that there is something to be perceived, and all will then say "Can I roll too?". In short, always telling them to roll (or even the DM rolling secretly for them) clues them in that there is something that they are possibly missing.

With the passive scores, I can resolve these chances at "noticing things" without clueing them in.

I think it is a benefit to players, and rewards them for training these skills over others. For instance, one of my players is an eladrin wizard whose passive perception is quite high. He feels good when his character notices things that the other players do not. As far as skills go, it's his chance to shine.

I do not use passive checks for knowledge or any other skills. If the players want to know if they know anything about a certain monster, area, history, religion, etc, then I require them to tell me that they are trying to do so, and thus they need to roll.

 

[Marius Delphus]

The way I understand it, passive Perception (et al.) works all the time. That is, if Tordek (whose passive Perception score is 10) is out smelling flowers, and something happens nearby that has a Perception DC of 10, Tordek notices it. Period, end of story.

I take it as a basic assumption of 4E that the PCs aren't pie-eyed novices, easily distracted amateurs, or absent-minded layabouts: they're heroes, and with that comes a certain minimum competency level. PCs notice stuff. They understand stuff. They know stuff. They're ready for stuff. I've tried to impress upon my players that any character with a dilettante attitude to adventuring is likely to get killed out there. I feel like 4E backs me up on this by giving all PCs a modicum of competence at several things; it's one of the things I like about it.

This is important in the War of the Burning Sky campaign as the story progresses: certain NPCs will expect the PCs to be heroes (that's one reason we take pains to call them "the heroes" throughout the books) and will infer that the PCs know what they're doing. A house rule that makes the PCs, in a way, less competent with their skills feels, to me, a little contrary to that notion. That said, if your house rule is working for you and your players, there's probably no reason to discard it.

HTH. HAND.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I play that passive perception is a free action, and the sneaky Kobold in the bushes has to use the Stealth rules to be hiding. I give the traps {when I use them} a 'stealth' skill.

I allow players to use Perception as a 'I look around for stuff' as a move action. This means the player who is spending time looking around for stuff will be going slowly.
It also means a really careful character can get three perception checks in a round by doing nothing else than peering intently about. {only two get rolls}

 

[lectric]

Ok, you guys have officially convinced me to scrap my house rule about passive skills. Great stuff. Thanks!