Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Passive skills
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6855885" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Agreed, which is why I incorporate more options than just pass/fail. There are a lot of ways to do it, having potential consequences if you fail by more than 5, or more than 10 are common choices. But I like the concept of Take 10/Take 20 in that it takes into account that a person capable of succeeding at something eventually will, given that they have enough time to keep trying.</p><p></p><p>Consider shooting a basketball. The old approach of if you fail once, you can't try again until you go up a level makes no sense. That assumes that until you improve your skill you can't possibly succeed (even if none of the effects of going up a level directly impact the skill in question). That just doesn't make sense to me. You just keep trying until you finally succeed.</p><p></p><p>The reality, if there is no danger at hand - you found a chest with a lock, and you can work on it as long as needed until you pick it - there really isn't any point in making a skill check. And if there is a danger, like picking the lock to get through the door before the guard returns, you could just keep rolling skill checks. But constantly re-rolling a pass/fail check is also kind of boring, although a valid option.</p><p></p><p>By tying failure in that case to time, you failed by 4, therefore it's going to take 4 rounds to succeed (the player just knows it will take longer), then the act of picking the lock continues while the rest of the characters find a way to give them enough time to succeed. They know it will take a few moments, and they have to provide the time needed.</p><p></p><p>This works well for most situations. Trying to remember that specific fact? "I know who that is, it's on the tip of my tongue...it'll come to me..." are situations that play very well.</p><p></p><p>It's all part of my general philosophy that the rules should provide us methods to adjudicate something specific, based on the skill of those involved, but allow for that bit of randomness without getting in the way of what's happening to the characters. Every time you roll a die, you are pulled out of what's going on in the game world, essentially "pausing" the action to determine what happens. Limiting the skill check to a single roll (until the situation changes significantly) meets those goals. The skill of the PC is taken into account, randomness is added, and the results can easily be determined. </p><p></p><p>Passive checks work within that same framework, there is less randomness with only one side making a roll, but that already has precedent with the attack roll vs a fixed AC. More importantly, I think it's a good representation of a character who isn't actively attempting something. For example, a merchant is attempting to deceive the PC. Unless the PC has reason to suspect the merchant from being dishonest, there's little reason for a skill check. A passive check is reasonable, because it's what represents the character's natural observation, what might tip them off that something's not quite right. You don't want the players to suspect every merchant, that's not realistic or fun after a while. Passive checks fill that gap when you as the DM knows something the players don't.</p><p></p><p>It's also a good tool for groups that don't like the DM to roll secretly. In those cases, they can adjudicate a lot of actions fairly without requiring the players to make a die roll that would tip them off that something might be up, and how well they have done.</p><p></p><p>Ilbranteloth</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6855885, member: 6778044"] Agreed, which is why I incorporate more options than just pass/fail. There are a lot of ways to do it, having potential consequences if you fail by more than 5, or more than 10 are common choices. But I like the concept of Take 10/Take 20 in that it takes into account that a person capable of succeeding at something eventually will, given that they have enough time to keep trying. Consider shooting a basketball. The old approach of if you fail once, you can't try again until you go up a level makes no sense. That assumes that until you improve your skill you can't possibly succeed (even if none of the effects of going up a level directly impact the skill in question). That just doesn't make sense to me. You just keep trying until you finally succeed. The reality, if there is no danger at hand - you found a chest with a lock, and you can work on it as long as needed until you pick it - there really isn't any point in making a skill check. And if there is a danger, like picking the lock to get through the door before the guard returns, you could just keep rolling skill checks. But constantly re-rolling a pass/fail check is also kind of boring, although a valid option. By tying failure in that case to time, you failed by 4, therefore it's going to take 4 rounds to succeed (the player just knows it will take longer), then the act of picking the lock continues while the rest of the characters find a way to give them enough time to succeed. They know it will take a few moments, and they have to provide the time needed. This works well for most situations. Trying to remember that specific fact? "I know who that is, it's on the tip of my tongue...it'll come to me..." are situations that play very well. It's all part of my general philosophy that the rules should provide us methods to adjudicate something specific, based on the skill of those involved, but allow for that bit of randomness without getting in the way of what's happening to the characters. Every time you roll a die, you are pulled out of what's going on in the game world, essentially "pausing" the action to determine what happens. Limiting the skill check to a single roll (until the situation changes significantly) meets those goals. The skill of the PC is taken into account, randomness is added, and the results can easily be determined. Passive checks work within that same framework, there is less randomness with only one side making a roll, but that already has precedent with the attack roll vs a fixed AC. More importantly, I think it's a good representation of a character who isn't actively attempting something. For example, a merchant is attempting to deceive the PC. Unless the PC has reason to suspect the merchant from being dishonest, there's little reason for a skill check. A passive check is reasonable, because it's what represents the character's natural observation, what might tip them off that something's not quite right. You don't want the players to suspect every merchant, that's not realistic or fun after a while. Passive checks fill that gap when you as the DM knows something the players don't. It's also a good tool for groups that don't like the DM to roll secretly. In those cases, they can adjudicate a lot of actions fairly without requiring the players to make a die roll that would tip them off that something might be up, and how well they have done. Ilbranteloth [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Passive skills
Top