Passive vs Active skill checks

[bveld]

I have recently started DM-ing and our group had an argument on the following. I would appreciate your input on this.

My players constantly want to use their passive skill scores instead of rolling for skill checks. This has been mostly an "issue" for perception checks.

For example when they try to listen at a door whether there are any enemies on the other side they they always argue (at least when they roll low) how come they hear less when they are actively listening than when they don't try to listen at all (passive)...

To be honest their argument actually makes sense...

On the other hand, as per PHB "When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. " (Passive Checks), which is definitely not the case when they are actively listening at the door.

However, the PHB also says "When you’re not in a rush, not being threatened or distracted (when you’re outside an encounter), and when you’re dealing with a mundane task, you can choose to take 10." (Take 10 rule).

So basically I should always let them take 10 (outside combat)?? This can have a serious negative effect on the excitement of skill checks in my opinion...

How do you handle issue above in your games?

 

[Joshua Randall]

Stick to your guns.

Any time the PC says "I do X", I treat it as an active check. So -- "I listen at the door" = active Perception check. (And I personally would never allow Take 10 while listening at a door in a dungeon, because by definition a dungeon is a stressful, threatening environment.)

But if the PC simply walks into a room and you want to tell him what he notices without even trying, use passive Perception.

To justify the "how do we get worse than passive when listening at a door", you can come up with lots of reasons -- the PC was stressed out by being in a dungeon full of monsters trying to kill him, and didn't listen very well -- the door was thicker than it looked -- through bad luck, just at the moment the PC stopped to listen, the monsters had a lull in their conversation -- etc.

All that said, of course there are some gray areas. You're never going to get 100% agreement about when to use passive vs. active checks.

 

[MrMyth]

I tend to use passive checks for any time the PCs are essentially reacting to outside input - someone trying to lie to them goes against their Passive Insight. Someone trying to sneak past them rolls against their Passive Perception.

If the players are in a hallway, and some people are whispering plans in a nearby room, I might use Passive Perception to determine if they notice the sounds - but success on this would probably just reveal they hear something. Whereas actively listening at the door, requiring rolling, would possibly have a lower DC, or have the chance to give them more specific sounds or words.

If players want to take 10 and the situation is reasonable to do so, that is fine. But, again, that means they don't have the chance at higher successes. Listening at a door, and taking 10, they might get only snippets of a conversation. Actively rolling might get them more details.

Do you have more examples of situations where this comes up? It seems like a rare enough sort of circumstance that I can't imagine it having an effect on the tension of skill checks in the game in general.

 

[Imaro]

First, let me say that I'm not a big fan of passive skills either. I especially feel they step all over the tension of traps. With the way passive perception is set up...either the trap is above the highest characters perception (and thus all characters fail to notice it)... or it's not (and it is noticed by the characters), IMO this is just too binary for my tastes. I want situations where even someone not great at perception may get lucky and perceive something others might have missed at times and where the perception king has a chance to miss something every so often.

My suggestion is that the PC's make 10 Perception/Insight rolls before the game starts and record them on a piece of paper that they give to the DM... When a passive perception check needs to happen, he just goes down the list... this avoids players knowing when something is there to be spotted as well.

 

[Riastlin]

Honestly, I usually let my players default to their passive perception and insight unless there's a particularly good reason not to. Of course, the level 10 avenger has a modifier of +20 or so to his perception checks, so its generally a moot point anyway.

As for other skills though, I usually require rolling unless there's plenty of time to set it up. i.e. a character can Take 10 on a jump check if he can carefully measure his run-up and isn't distracted, etc. but could not do so in the thick of combat. Take 10 on a History check if in a town with a library, etc. wherein there's plenty of time to find the answer, but when viewing the symbol worn by the BBEG he might not recognize it off the top of his head (even if its something fairly obvious to him).

Not sure my default to passive is supported by the rules, but as I indicated, its rarely an issue anyway as even with rolling it will be a rare event if the avenger fails to see or hear something.

 

[chitzk0i]

So basically I should always let them take 10 (outside combat)?? This can have a serious negative effect on the excitement of skill checks in my opinion...

If the PCs aren't in a rush, aren't being threatened or distracted, or it's a mundane task, why does it matter? If it's reasonable, say they succeed and move on.

 

[MrMyth]

First, let me say that I'm not a big fan of passive skills either. I especially feel they step all over the tension of traps. With the way passive perception is set up...either the trap is above the highest characters perception (and thus all characters fail to notice it)... or it's not (and it is noticed by the characters), IMO this is just too binary for my tastes. I want situations where even someone not great at perception may get lucky and perceive something others might have missed at times and where the perception king has a chance to miss something every so often.

Yeah, I've tended to just use Passive skills for actively opposed checks. If someone is hiding from you, that goes against Passive Perception. If there is a hidden trap or door, that requires an actual declaration that you are searching the area and a rolled Perception check.

My suggestion is that the PC's make 10 Perception/Insight rolls before the game starts and record them on a piece of paper that they give to the DM... When a passive perception check needs to happen, he just goes down the list... this avoids players knowing when something is there to be spotted as well.

This is how our group would often do this sort of thing in previous editions, but I found could end up being a bit of a hassle. I prefer, these days, just not letting PCs notice things unless they are actively looking for them. Which can occasionally backfire by slowing things down as PCs declare they are searching everything... but I find that preferable to PCs with really good Perception bypassing every trap, hidden door, etc.

 

[Dedekind]

I treat passive scores as 5+skill modifier instead of 10+skill modifier. IMO, if you aren't paying attention, you should get a penalty to your check, not the average score. This seems to take care of most of the concerns discussed, while still allowing for bad luck for active rolls (rolls less than 5).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I use Passive Perception and Passive Insight as DCs that monsters/traps roll against... rather than auto-rolls that PCs make.

So when an enemy goes into hiding... he rolls his Stealth against the PC's Passive Perceptions to see if he's hidden from everyone. When I design traps, I don't select a Perception DC for players to roll against to notice it, I have the traps themselves make a Stealth check just like I do for monsters hiding (and I get the Stealth check modifier for traps from sources like the DMG from the Perception DC of the trap minus 10). This way I can roll to see how well the trap is hidden vs. the PC's Passive Perceptions. This same philosophy goes into my NPCs trying to Bluff the PCs... NPC Bluff checks vs PC's Passive Insight.

Doing it this way means the PCs do not ever know that "something's up" because I'm asking them to make Perception or Insight checks for reasons that I do not give. And after that... if the PCs want to scope a room, or listen at a door, or see if someone is lying to them... Active checks on their part all the way.

 

[Pbartender]

I've found that one of the best ways to look at it, especially with regards to Perception, is this:

A passive check gives the players a clue that something should be paid attention to ("You hear faint mumbling as you approach the door.").

An active check gives further detail, should the player decide to pay attention ("On the other side of the door, it sounds like at least two, but perhaps as many as four, hobgoblins are arguing over a game of Go Fish.")

It works well for traps also...

The passive check let's you know something isn't quite right -- kind of like "Spidey-sense". The active check might give more details on how the trap kills, what triggers it, and exactly where it's located. Making the passive, but failing the active, would simply mean the PC strongly suspects that there's a trap around here somewhere ("I've got a bad feeling about this."), but not necessarily where it is, what it does, or how it get's set off.

There's still tension there, but it's a different sort.


EDIT: DEFCON 1... That XP note should read "Traps", not "Raps"