Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6348277" data-attributes="member: 996">Apart from the meta-game issues and mind games of hidden rolls, contested rolls have always seemed a little off.&nbsp; They deliver very inconsistent results that are somewhat at odds with what bounded accuracy and adv/dis otherwise achieve.&nbsp; Using one creature's score as a target and having the other make the roll keeps such checks a bit more playable and closer to the variance of other checks, attack rolls, etc.&nbsp; It could just as easily be the players rolling active perception against 'passive' stealth as having monsters roll stealth against passive perception.&nbsp; On the other extreme, static vs static ('check' passive perception of 14 vs DC 15 always failing, for instance) is also against the spirit of bounded accuracy.&nbsp; If it's that close, someone should roll.Given the way 5e handles checks in general, and the rulings-no-rules philosophy, the DM is well within his rights to ignore passive perception (except as a rough guide of how alert the PCs are relative to eachother), and just decide whether they spot traps or are surprised by ambushes - unless they actively take measures to search, in which case the usual rules (again, including automatic success of failure, or rolling vs a DM-decided DC) apply.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6348277, member: 996"] Apart from the meta-game issues and mind games of hidden rolls, contested rolls have always seemed a little off. They deliver very inconsistent results that are somewhat at odds with what bounded accuracy and adv/dis otherwise achieve. Using one creature's score as a target and having the other make the roll keeps such checks a bit more playable and closer to the variance of other checks, attack rolls, etc. It could just as easily be the players rolling active perception against 'passive' stealth as having monsters roll stealth against passive perception. On the other extreme, static vs static ('check' passive perception of 14 vs DC 15 always failing, for instance) is also against the spirit of bounded accuracy. If it's that close, someone should roll. Given the way 5e handles checks in general, and the rulings-no-rules philosophy, the DM is well within his rights to ignore passive perception (except as a rough guide of how alert the PCs are relative to eachother), and just decide whether they spot traps or are surprised by ambushes - unless they actively take measures to search, in which case the usual rules (again, including automatic success of failure, or rolling vs a DM-decided DC) apply. [/QUOTE]

Verification