D&D 5E Stealth and sleeping creatures

[iserith]

Huh. Well, since players don't declare passive checks, I'm not sure why WotC put that in the PHB. It should be in the DMG. Also not sure why there's a "passive" check rule at all in a streamlined game. But that's me, and I'm not in charge of an iconic RPG franchise.

I fixed that last part for you. The decision to use the DC chart, or no chart, is part of running the game for the DM - not a houserule.

Players don't declare checks at all. But a passive check doesn't mean the character is not doing anything either. It means the character is doing a thing repeatedly over time e.g. "staying alert to danger." So the player establishes that the character is staying alert to danger perhaps while traveling, exploring, or taking watch, as opposed to performing some other task that distracts from this, and the DM can then call for an ability check or a passive check if needed. In order to apply advantage or disadvantage to a passive check (e.g. disadvantage on passive Perception for traveling at a fast pace), the designers had to go with some kind of static modifier, in this case, a -5 (though people better than me at math say advantage/disadvantage as a modifier varies depending on what you need to roll to succeed).

 

[jmartkdr2]

Huh. Well, since players don't declare passive checks, I'm not sure why WotC put that in the PHB. It should be in the DMG. Also not sure why there's a "passive" check rule at all in a streamlined game. But that's me, and I'm not in charge of an iconic RPG franchise.

I fixed that last part for you. The decision to use the DC chart, or no chart, is part of running the game for the DM - not a houserule.

Rule 0 is just the fact that you're allowed to make houserules.

 

[GMMichael]

I must be feeling argumentative today. "Ssssssomebody stop me!"

I believe the intent was to avoid many-to-most instances of "both sides roll" in the belief that roughly half as many people calculating their results would result in more streamlined game play. It can also work for streamlining stuff, if the DM knows the PCs' passive scores across the board and treats those as floors for determining, e.g., what characters know; you can think of it as being helpful for determining auto-success.

Players don't declare checks at all. . . In order to apply advantage or disadvantage to a passive check (e.g. disadvantage on passive Perception for traveling at a fast pace), the designers had to go with some kind of static modifier. . .

Passive checks seem to have an origin in 3e, a house rule which Chris Sims called "skill scores."

Every player adds 10 to each skill modifier to come up with what I call a "skill score" . . . Skill scores are useful for passive Listen and Spot checks too.

The problem arose when a PC tried to climb down a "narrow shaft" and failed a (unrequested) roll for it. Both player and DM agreed that no failure was necessary. The solution was that the character's skill score was above the DC of climbing, so the PC would have passed his passive check.

There's no need to use dis/advantage for the original passive check purpose, because it's a comparison of a PC score against a DC set by the DM. If there's advantage, the DM would just use a lower DC.

But I digress. There's no need for passive checks in 5e, because as iserith said, players don't declare checks at all, and DMs call for a check when there's "a chance of failure." Since a passive check also determines if there's a chance of failure, it's a redundant system. Yes, it can save time by suggesting that some die rolls aren't necessary, but it also takes time to compare one or more DCs to the passive score of each PC involved.

In the sleeping dragon example, as written, the OP wants to know if a dragon would notice sneaking PCs. That's a "contest," with the dragon's perception opposing the stealth of the PCs. But the dragon's asleep, which is obviously a disadvantage. No passive check needed.

But if OP considered that contest a bit too "active" for the dragon, one could just set the DC for waking the dragon (be careful, Daenerys) and let PCs roll against that. No passive check needed, no passive dis/advantage modifier needed.

Rule 0 is just the fact that you're allowed to make houserules.

So GMs don't actually run the game - the (book) rules do? Sounds like a lot of page-turning.

 

[prabe]

I always figured it was descended from the Taking 10 rule for 3.x.

There's no need to use dis/advantage for the original passive check purpose, because it's a comparison of a PC score against a DC set by the DM. If there's advantage, the DM would just use a lower DC.

So, if you're using Passive Perception to set the DC for a DEX (Stealth) check, you're using dis/advantage on the Perception to change the DC for the Stealth; in that case, it actually has a purpose (and lets dis/advantage on the Stealth check still apply).

And if you're a DM who wants to think of DCs as setting something like an objective difficulty, changing the DC is going to feel different from modifying the passive skill, even if the end result is roughly identical.

 

[Oofta]

I always figured it was descended from the Taking 10 rule for 3.x.



So, if you're using Passive Perception to set the DC for a DEX (Stealth) check, you're using dis/advantage on the Perception to change the DC for the Stealth; in that case, it actually has a purpose (and lets dis/advantage on the Stealth check still apply).

And if you're a DM who wants to think of DCs as setting something like an objective difficulty, changing the DC is going to feel different from modifying the passive skill, even if the end result is roughly identical.

Not to mention that some PCs might have disadvantage while others do not. It "feels" wrong if a 10 works for one PC but not the next.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So GMs don't actually run the game - the (book) rules do? Sounds like a lot of page-turning.

If you're not gonna use the books, why say you're playing Dungeons and Dragons? Just call it 'playing pretend.'