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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8203787" data-attributes="member: 6987520">This is why I treat passive scores the way I do.As a DM, if I know there is a clue or something a PC might notice, but I don't describe well enough or the player isn't clever enough to connect the dots, I use passive scores. For example, if the DC is 20, and your gnome with a 23 should fine something, I'll ask you to roll. That is not RAW, of course, but I don't want auto-successes. With +8, you have a good chance of making it so I'll let the dice decide.I also think that because distinguishing between them is often difficult and/or blurred--it should be a single skill, but used with either INT or WIS depending on the bent employed in the situation.But yeah, Observant can led to really high passive scores. In our 1-20 campaign, my rogue with INT and WIS 18 and Observant had Passive Perception (and Investigation) scores of 31 at level 20. Not the highest possible, but pretty darn good. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The sad thing is, with Reliable Talent, the lowest I could even roll was 26s...At any rate, if passive scores are really "passive" and not "averages or taking 10s" (which they more seem to be), I think they should be 5+modifiers, and Observant would then boost them to 10+ effectively.</blockquote>

Verification