D&D 5E Passive skills

[randrak]

What's best when faced with a situation where you want things to be subtle? The DM doing hidden rolls for the player, the DM telling the player to roll but not telling them why or the DM using passive skills?
I know passive perception is very much a thing, I use it for when the characters aren't actively searching around for things but I wonder if other passives can be used...like passive investigation for spotting minute details without even realizing it or passive acrobatics to see if they would trip while walking in a muddy field.

What about passive knowledges to see what kind of info they get? Sure, they can still roll but if they roll a 9 that would mean they don't get much of anything but if they have a passive of 18 on that knowledge then they would still get some basic info.

What about passive insight? I usually do not have my players do insight rolls unless they ask for it. If they as players don't suspect that their are being lied to, for example, and don't ask to do an insight roll then the lies just flies over their head. But let's say, the party's bard has a passive insight of 20, wouldn't he be pretty phenomenal at spotting lies? Even if the player doesn't.

I just wonder, where do we draw the line between what the player and the character? A DM can frame a scene, but not even the best DMs can frame them perfectly to point out every little detail or create the same scene in everyone's heads.

 

[Rhenny]

Generally, when I frame a scene, I just give a brief outline of what PCs can see or know. If a player wants more information, he/she must have his or her character do something or think something to try to glean extra information. As DM, I first decide if that PC would be able to see/do/know the information before I decide if they should make a roll. Many times, I just give them the information they are looking for or I allow them to act without a roll, but sometimes, when the outcome is in doubt, I ask for a roll. Most of the time, I use two questions to help me make decisions like this: 1) Does it seem logical that a PC would know the information? Is it information that will help build the story and give players a chance to "play" off of the information? This is the art of DMing, and nobody can really tell another DM when to call for a roll.
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has written many wonderful things about how to adjudicate in this manner, and he has helped me hone my style even after DMing for over 30 years.

Many times, if I know that my players like to roll for things, I call for rolls, but set the DC really low...5 or less because I realize that some players like to use their dice/decisions to influence the way the game plays. I've found that even telling players that all they have to do is not roll a 1, is sufficient to raise tension and satisfy the player need to control.

I rarely use passive checks. If I do, it is usually just for perception of other creatures or special features, and then instead of setting a DC, I usually roll for the other creatures/items to see what the DC becomes. This way, even PCs with higher passive perceptions will not always succeed, and PCs with lower passive perceptions still get a chance to shine once in a while.

 

[iserith]

What's best when faced with a situation where you want things to be subtle? The DM doing hidden rolls for the player, the DM telling the player to roll but not telling them why or the DM using passive skills?

I guess it depends on what your goal is with keeping things subtle or secret. Some DMs have concerns about "metagaming," wherein players are aware of a check being made or see a low check result coupled with the DM desecribing nothing, and act as if something is up. For example, a player has described his or her character as searching for traps in the hallway, the DM calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check, the player gets a low result, and the DM says "You find no traps." The player then suggests someone else search or takes additional precautions because the fact that there was a check might indicate there is indeed a trap present in the hallway.

I would suggest that it's the way the DM is narrating the result that is causing the issue. By narrating the result as being progress combined with a setback or success at a cost, you can describe the failed Wisdom (Perception) check above as the character stepping on a pressure plate during the search (if that is fictionally reasonable) and potentially setting the trap in motion. The player gets what he or she wanted - to find the trap - but the failed check means it didn't turn out exactly as planned. "Metagaming" has been avoided here by the DM's deft description which moves the scene forward and sets up an interesting dramatic situation.

I know passive perception is very much a thing, I use it for when the characters aren't actively searching around for things but I wonder if other passives can be used...like passive investigation for spotting minute details without even realizing it or passive acrobatics to see if they would trip while walking in a muddy field.

Yes, that's a use for it, but I would suggest thinking about passive checks in a different way. That is, as the resolution mechanic for a fictional act with an uncertain outcome that is undertaken repeatedly on an ongoing basis. "Passive" refers to the fact that there are no checks, after all, not that the characters are not actively doing something. So if the characters are exploring a dungeon, you can ask them what each of them are generally doing as they go about their business. Activities might include (but aren't limited to) keeping alert for danger, tracking, drawing a map, navigating, searching for secret doors, trying to deduce the meaning of the ubiquitous wall carvings, or what have you. If you're doing one of these things, you're not doing something else. The trade-off keeps the meaningful decision in play versus in how you built your character. If any of those things has an uncertain outcome, you can do a passive check by comparing the PC's passive scores to the DC and determine an outcome.

What about passive knowledges to see what kind of info they get? Sure, they can still roll but if they roll a 9 that would mean they don't get much of anything but if they have a passive of 18 on that knowledge then they would still get some basic info.

I would pass this through the lens of whether the PCs were performing the task repeatedly. Doing research during downtime might qualify, for example. Generally this is something I use a regular ability check for, however. A successful check means getting all the information they need; a failed check means getting some information they need. I try not to have any result mean "You don't know..." or "Nothing happens..."

What about passive insight? I usually do not have my players do insight rolls unless they ask for it. If they as players don't suspect that their are being lied to, for example, and don't ask to do an insight roll then the lies just flies over their head. But let's say, the party's bard has a passive insight of 20, wouldn't he be pretty phenomenal at spotting lies? Even if the player doesn't.

At my table, players do not ask to make ability checks, passive or otherwise. They just say what they are doing fictionally and I tell them if a check is required. In the case of passive Insight, this would come into play in an extended social interaction scene where the PC's primary activity is trying to suss out lies or hidden motivations. For example, the character is mingling at the gathering of nobles and trying to figure out which one likely to be a spy for Lord Evil. Your bard with the passive Insight of 20 would be great at this task; however, I think it's important to make it a trade-off as above. While the bard is trying to figure out who the spy is, he or she can't impress potential patrons with musical instruments or other performances.

I just wonder, where do we draw the line between what the player and the character? A DM can frame a scene, but not even the best DMs can frame them perfectly to point out every little detail or create the same scene in everyone's heads.

As [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION] suggests above, you offer a pithy description of the scene that telegraphs potential clues and threats. Then you ask the players "What do you do?" It's on them to explore and investigate further. If what they want to do has an uncertain outcome (the DM decides this), then call for an appropriate ability check (or a passive check if the task is being performed repeatedly) to resolve the uncertainty. Remember to keep in mind the stakes of the roll, that is, what happens when the check succeeds and what happens when the check fails. Make sure both are interesting and help move the scene forward in the some way.

 

[pukunui]

For those familiar with WotC's previous editions, a "passive check" is 5e's version of "taking 10".

 

[Li Shenron]

For those familiar with WotC's previous editions, a "passive check" is 5e's version of "taking 10".

You need to be careful however in how allowing this as a default may devalue the Rogue's Reliable Talent ability.

Personally I do not allow older Take10 and Take20 rules at all. I use passive checks freely but typically on things that are not important.

The problem is that we don't really understand what this kind of stuff really means to the game

We're talking about rules that tell when you are supposed to roll, and when you are not supposed to roll. If you have to roll it means that the outcome will be random, and if you don't have to roll it means it will be DM's decision. But in addition, many times the real matter is whether the player's decision has an influence in the first place... and that typically happens before the DM even decides whether to ask for a check or not (after that, the player may also decide if the stakes are high enough so that it's worth expending some resources to improve her chances on a check).

The you have stuff in the game with very different consequences of success/failure. You might have:

- critical points, where success/failure on a single event directly mean success/failure on the whole quest, PC death, or similar consequences
- major points, where the consequence implies significant adjustments to the story (e.g. being captured, having to retreat, popping up a required side quest)
- standard points, consequences typically increase/decrease your chance of success later (e.g. getting an extra encounter, finding a shortcut, gaining important information, being significantly wounded or impaired, having to expend permanent or daily resources, gaining bonus items or treasure)
- minor points (e.g. minor injuries, minor treasure, gathering non-critical information, build up world knowledge and NPC relations not directly tied to your quests)

Personally I think that it's worth to decide your mechanics while keeping an eye on the consequences. I like randomness because I like the story to unfold in ways that neither the players nor the DM (nor the book!) knows in advance, so I would always use checks when dealing with "standard" points, but as the stakes get higher, I might want to decrease randomness and use rules that guarantee you either succeed or you know you can't do it and have to find another way. Similarly, for "minor" points, randomness is fine but sometimes it's not worth even rolling and you can just go for some automatic result (chosen perhaps to counterbalance the recent group's luck/unluck). For example, I generally like to sprinkle hints and bits of knowledge of the world or future things to come in the story, and in that case I would just let the players know, as if they are doing passive knowledge checks with low DC all the time.

 

[pukunui]

I meant that it is essentially the same thing. You take your modifier and add 10. Just like when you take 10. Yes, in 5e, it's the DM's call as to when a passive check is used, not the player's, but mechanically speaking, it's the same thing as taking 10.

Reliable Talent is different, insofar as the player is still rolling and can potentially get a high result. They just can't get lower than what they would've gotten with a passive/take 10 result.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I use passive checks pretty frequently. To me passive checks can be used as a baseline, but I provide less information with a passive check. This is combined with the concept of variable success/failure.

For example, a party is travelling through the woods and some orcs have set up an ambush. I'll tell a player with a high enough passive Perception something like, "you feel like you're being watched," or "you heard a twig snap to the right." Then they decide how they want to proceed. A rolled Perception would potentially yield more information.

A passive Investigation check would yield a "hunch" as to what the various clues mean (gives me an opportunity to fill in some blanks if they aren't "getting it" on their own). Some passive checks I use as just automatic success. Passive Athletics checks give me an idea of how difficult a climb a particular character is good at before having to start rolling checks. If they engage in combat while climbling, they'll most likely have to make some actual checks.

I also use a modification of the "Take 20" concept. That is, if the character is capable of succeeding, then they will eventually, given enough time. I don't want to deal with rolling over and over. So if the DC is 20, the character has a +3, and rolls an 8, the difference between the DC and the roll is the amount of time it will take (they don't know how long that is). In this case 9 rounds. If they stop before that they don't succeed.

But, I also still want to allow some chance of outright failure, although it shouldn't be too high. So if they fail by more than 5, or more than 10, there may be other consequences, although that doesn't prevent them from continuing.

The Reliable Talent ability isn't really affected. That comes into play when an active check is needed, and since it's an 11th level ability, it's also more for the very complex tasks (DC 25+), since many things would be well within their reach without the ability.

Overall, I find passive checks very useful.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Deleted duplicate post.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Psikerlord#]

Personally I believe the "Take 10" or passive scores are terrible. Anything that takes the random out is a bad idea, imo.

I prefer making secret rolls. The DM will be making all kinds of secret rolls anyway (random monsters, treasure tables, NPC reaction checks, monster hiding checks, etc) - so what's the of another roll matter? (note I am not talking about "combat" rolls, which I prefer all out in the open).

I believe "take 10" /passive arose out of an attempt to prevent the "I try again" problem: when players attempt the same action over and over until success, or until they rolled a 20 (eg: I check for secret doors until I roll a 20, and so on). A better solution to this however is generally ruling that "retries" are not allowed unless the situation somehow changes in the PC's favour.

There is no genuine use for passive checks that is outweighed by the downsides imo - those downsides being (i) the same person spots all the traps/ambushes/clues etc all the time, and (ii) the static traps vs static passive perception problem (auto detect/fail, barring any direct action nullifying the trap/etc).

If as GM you want to give the players some info - just give it to them - don't rely on "passive" as a reason why.

There have been lots of threads on passive. For me the answer is simple: don't use passive at all. 2e and earlier had no passive and the game worked fine. As do most other RPGs (I cant think of one with passive?).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Personally I believe the "Take 10" or passive scores are terrible. Anything that takes the random out is a bad idea, imo.

I prefer making secret rolls. The DM will be making all kinds of secret rolls anyway (random monsters, treasure tables, NPC reaction checks, monster hiding checks, etc) - so what's the of another roll matter? (note I am not talking about "combat" rolls, which I prefer all out in the open).

I believe "take 10" /passive arose out of an attempt to prevent the "I try again" problem: when players attempt the same action over and over until success, or until they rolled a 20 (eg: I check for secret doors until I roll a 20, and so on). A better solution to this however is generally ruling that "retries" are not allowed unless the situation somehow changes in the PC's favour.

There is no genuine use for passive checks that is outweighed by the downsides imo - those downsides being (i) the same person spots all the traps/ambushes/clues etc all the time, and (ii) the static traps vs static passive perception problem (auto detect/fail, barring any direct action nullifying the trap/etc).

If as GM you want to give the players some info - just give it to them - don't rely on "passive" as a reason why.

There have been lots of threads on passive. For me the answer is simple: don't use passive at all. 2e and earlier had no passive and the game worked fine. As do most other RPGs (I cant think of one with passive?).

Except that this doesn't take into account that some people are naturally better at some things than other people. Total randomness strains the suspense of disbelief. My real issue is that a somebody with a high skill level shouldn't have to worry about failing what has become a trivial task for them, but one with a lower level of skill should.

I totally disagree with the idea that something must change in a person's favor before a retry. For example, picking a lock. There's no reason, unless you break it (unlikely) that you can't just keep trying. If it's within your capability (that is, you can eventually roll high enough to succeed), then you can just keep trying until you do. The variable here is time.

If there is no risk, then there's really no need to roll at all. But what if you're trying to pick a lock to sneak into a room before the guard returns? Then you have a fixed amount of time to succeed. Each check becomes important. But instead of re-rolling every turn you look at the task as a whole. That is, you make one skill check, and while the rogue is working on it, the sorcerer is telling him to hurry up while the fighter is watching the guard work his way back to where he's currently working on the door. So you're saying that the only options should be succeed or fail. If he fails then he can't pick the lock at all? I don't believe that's a "better solution" at all.

As for the passive checks, you could just use the ability score modifier to judge who is better at what, but basically it's also setting a floor. If you don't want to increase the floor, that's fine. But you still have a passive ability based on the modifier itself. They've set the floor at anything easy is doable without a check. I'm OK with that, but not with the idea that somebody with a high passive ability (Perception being the biggest one) will automatically find everything. But they are more alert than somebody with a lower one. So that's where the "hunch" or "feeling" or "you notice something" comes into play. They have a sense of what's out there, now it's a question of how they figure it out, either through role-playing, or by making an active check. If they roll low on the active check, it might take a while to figure it out (which they may not have) or they may have made a wrong assumption and have bad information to work with (oh, I thought they were behind that tree.)

2e for a long time didn't even have skill checks originally. So by that logic we don't need skill checks either.

Sure, you can run a game without passive checks, but they are extremely helpful once you get the hang of them.

Ilbranteloth