Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8203429" data-attributes="member: 16814">Passive check are used when an action is repeated over time, or the GM wishes to have a check without the player rolling.  From the basic rules:So, then, when do you use it?  You use it just like a normal check, when the player declares and action for their PC that has an uncertain outcome (and a consequence for failure, if you're using the Middle Path).  Specifically, when the player declares an action that their PC is repeating, like looking for traps while moving along the passageway, or looking for evidence of secret doors while doing the same.  If a situation arises where the outcome of that action is uncertain, you can use the passive check because it's a repeated action over time -- essentially the average of a number of checks.  The key, for me at least, is that passive checks are not universal applications to all possible actions at all times.  If you move down the hallway looking for traps, then it's not going to find other things that could be perception checks that aren't traps.  The action declaration matters -- passive perception isn't a radar warning system.  In reality, what I do, since secret doors are similar to traps, would be to apply full passive perception to the one, and disadvantage to the other.In combat, it's already assumed that everyone is always looking out for danger, so using passive perception to detect hidden foes makes sense -- this is a default action declaration that's free to the characters (ie, takes no action).  This is, in context, where the "passive as floor to normal checks" comes from -- you can take an action to Search for a hidden foe, but since you were already using passive, if the foe's DEX(stealth) check was lower than that, you'd have already see him, so it effectively acts as a floor in this case.  Similarly, if you're looking for traps while moving down a passage, but declare a specific action to search a feature the GM described for traps, then you were already looking for traps and if one was present on the feature you'd have already found it if it's DC was below or equal to your passive score.  This is the context for passive as floor.  Since it requires action declarations for passive anything to be used, then it can't be the floor for any normal check.As for Perception vs Investigation, they are frustratingly similar.  The key to separating these is actually in how you present challenges.  Perception notices things, Investigation figures them out.  If you want more Investigation in your game, call for more INT checks that Investigation applies to.  If you have a trap, let the presence and general threat be detected by Perception, but have the actual operation of the trap (what triggers/methods/results exist) be INT (Investigation).  A little change to how things are presented can make Investigation a much more often used tool.  Be careful, though, that you're not turning traps into 3-check problems -- detect, determine, defeat -- because that increases dramatically the odds of failure.  I'd recommend using the Investigate as a setup skill that can apply advantage to the defeat check on a success and disad on a failure (I'm a huge fan of not calling for a check unless there's a consequence, YMMV).  Or, as I often do, making detection automatic -- burn marks on the floor and low walls with obvious holes in the ceiling indicates a trap without a roll.  Now the players can investigate.  A mix of both -- having traps that are well hidden, like in a chest or a fiendishly clever trap, and traps that are clearly visible, makes for some interest and provide some good adventures, especially if an obvious trap is not feasibly disarmed in a simple manner (some traps, like rolling boulder traps, may be hard to disarm, and thus provide a hazard to be worked around, like a pool of lava).</blockquote>

Verification