{
"post": {
"title": "Reminder: You can have other \"passive\" skills beyond just Perception",
"selftext": "In light of a recent post I saw about how a DM should use Insight checks, I thought it helpful to remind all the DMs out there that every skill is capable of being used as a \"passive\" skill (i.e. skills that are continuously applicable in the background).\n\nFun Fact: There is no such thing as a \"Passive Perception score\", in the official sourcebooks. \n\nWhat many believe is called a \"passive Perception score\" is actually a character's \"passive Wisdom (Perception) score\". The distinction is important. Somehow, the 5e zeitgeist came to embrace Perception as the end-all-be-all passive skill, but in reality all skills can be equally useful - both for DMs and players - when deployed as passive skills. \n\nAs an example, I'll look at Insight (the \"lie detector\" skill debated earlier). \n\nSituation: An NPC is trying to tell a lie, and the party obviously always wants to catch the lie. \n\nOpen-rolling an Insight check, or even just asking for an Insight check during a routine encounter, can lead the party to often meta-game suspect the NPC of lying automatically, or worse... \"I rolled a Nat 20 on my Insight, so I know for sure if he's lying to us or not\". The alternative passive Wisdom (Insight) score provides a workaround for the DM. \n\nAssume each character has a passive Wisdom (Insight) skill \"activated\" - let's say the highest passive Wisdom (Insight) score in the party is 16, and that the DM knows this persistent information beforehand. The DM rolls the lying NPC's Charisma (Deception) check behind the screen - let's say it's a 14. This would ping the guy with the highest Passive Insight, who notices shifty eyes or flop sweats or whatever the DM provides for the Passive Insight in beating the lie. Alternatively, the NPC scores a 19 on his Charisma (Deception) check, and the party is given no reason to suspect him, the interaction is pinged by the DM as being \"fairly casual\" or \"business-as-usual\".\n\nA comparable use case can be made for Dexterity (Stealth), especially as it pertains to groups travelling stealthily over long times/distances. The DM just has to roll Perception checks for anyone coming across the party and comparing it to the passive Dexterity (Stealth) check to see if the sneaking works or not; it doesn't even definitively give away the presence of the other person to the players; they don't know if they've been discovered (and possibly counter-ambushed) or not because the DM is rolling everything in secret.\n\nHere's the real key to all this I've noticed: when it comes to passive skills, it's effectiveness is derived from the secrecy of the roll (so players don't meta-game their skill roll results) as well as the DM knowing when to best utilize them on the player's behalf - that way you don't need to wait for someone to declare/make an Intelligence (Nature) roll in order to tell them whether or not they know what a platypus is, for example, and you'd probably want a \"Passive intelligence (Nature)\" check if they expect not to be surprised by the venomous spine at its foot, too.",
"url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/15xncoo/reminder_you_can_have_other_passive_skills_beyond/"
},
"comments": [
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": "There are some good use cases for those. A bodyguard would be passively intimidating, for example, instead of trying to specifically and individually intimidate every person he sees.\n\nAnd Passive Animal Handling is how you ride a horse all day without worrying about falling off. You don't need to make a new check every few rounds.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": "> If you shoo a goose does it get up in your face, or leave?\n\nIs it a Canada goose? Because if so, even with a Nat 20 you are rolling initiative...",
"replies": [
{
"body": "One does not shoo a cobra chicken."
},
{
"body": "If you got a problem with Canada gooses, you got a problem with me. And I suggest you let that one marinate.",
"replies": [
{
"body": ">level 5Aptom\\_4 · 6 hr. agoIf you got a problem with Canada gooses, you got a problem with me. And I suggest you let that one marinate.\n\nDoes it taste better marinated?"
}
]
},
{
"body": "I want this T-shirt",
"replies": [
{
"body": "I'm sure it's in amazon.com"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Passive acrobatics is catching you phone with the top of your foot when you drop it. \n\nA barbarian with maxed out strength is constantly passing their passive athletics tests and pulling off the handles on push to open doors.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "No. The passive value of the skill is the average for what you do regularly, from time to time, and not the minimum one. Passive acrobatics can reflect the ability to walk for hours on slippery ice and not to get exhausted from falls, but not the result of attemting to knock you down."
}
]
},
{
"body": "I don't have my players roll Knowledge checks; I use their passive skills to determine what they would know."
},
{
"body": "\"OK, I leave the tavern and head towards the temple to talk to the priest.\"\n\n*noise of the the DM rolling several dice behind the screen*\n\n\"As you exit the tavern, an eagle lands on your shoulder. A few small children gasp and run away.\"\n\n*more sounds of rolling*\n\n\"One of the children starts crying.\"\n\n*one more die roll*\n\n\"You can't tell whether or not he peed his pants\""
}
]
},
{
"body": "it is why observant is either amazing or awful\n\neither your DM uses passive stuff and its great or they dont and its a +1 to WIS over a regular ASI",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Also the ability to read lips, which is probably still fairly DM dependent...",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Comprehend language plus observant seems like a pretty strong rp combo",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That doesn’t work RAW or RAI because Comprehend Languages only allows you to understand spoken language *that you can hear* and written language that you can see (and touch).",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Awwww man thanks for pointing that out!!!"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
]
},
{
"body": "Some PCs can have a passive aggressive skill, it's my least favorite :(",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Aww :("
},
{
"body": "Well done, witty one."
}
]
},
{
"body": ">Fun Fact: There is no such thing as a \"Passive Perception score\", in the official sourcebooks \n\nThere actually is. Every monster entry has \"passive perception\" listed. Sure, it's technically a \"passive Wisdom (Perception)\", but it's listed as such a zillion times in the core books.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "Not to mention it also has its own definition on PHB 177 and DMG 279, and official character sheets have an entry for passive perception."
}
]
},
{
"body": "> Fun Fact: There is no such thing as a \"Passive Perception score\", in the official sourcebooks.\n\nI mean, that just isn't true. Passive perception is mentioned multiple times in the source books (and has a dedicated spot on the character sheets provided in the PHB). Other passive skills, are in fact, not mentioned at all in the source books. That doesn't mean you can't use them however!\n\nPHB 177\n\n> Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.\n\nDMG 279\n\n> Passive Perception Score. All monsters have a passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which is most often used to determine whether a monster detects approaching or hidden enemies. A monster's passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 10 + its Wisdom modifier. If the monster has proficiency in the Perception skill, its score is 10 + its Wisdom (Perception) bonus."
},
{
"body": "A fighter in my group doesn't have int as a dump stat so I play that their passive intelligence. Is able to sus out more clues without having to roll. General info or comparisons, if the player wants specific data that is a roll."
},
{
"body": "I use passive Sleight of Hand for The rogue thief in my party. She likes to just randomly pickpocket while walking through a crowded market."
},
{
"body": "> A comparable use case can be made for Dexterity (Stealth), especially as it pertains to groups travelling stealthily over long times/distances. The DM just has to roll Perception checks for anyone coming across the party and comparing it to the passive Dexterity (Stealth) check to see if the sneaking works or not; it doesn't even definitively give away the presence of the other person to the players; they don't know if they've been discovered (and possibly counter-ambushed) or not because the DM is rolling everything in secret.\n\nDisagree with this, kind of. I agree that this is a good use case for passive scores from one side, however, this is actually pretty much the hallmark example for the use of passive *Perception*, not passive *Stealth*. Determine stealth score(s) for the party however you go about doing that, and then any time they pass by something that would notice them, compare to the \"noticers\" passive Perception score, to see if they notice the party without actively searching for them. \"Active\" Perception would only be rolled if the character is directly looking/listening for something. If the party makes a noise by bumping into a ladder, maybe a guard transitions from passive P to active P when they look/search in the direction of the noise.\n\nPassive scores are, as you noted, to be used for \"skills that are continuously applicable in the background.\" You can't really be \"passively Stealthy,\" it's something you actively focus on performing. (*Okay, maybe some people are naturally more quiet than others, but not to the level of being completely unnoticed by simple happenstance.)* So for the most part, this comes down to *noticing* things. There's a reason most character sheets only have Investigation, Insight, and Perception passive scores listed. Most other skills *can't* be, or will *extremely rarely* be, used passively. At first blush, the following can probably never or nearly never be used passively, and if they can, the circumstance would be extremely rare and specific: \n\n> Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, Stealth.\n\nAnd these, while I could see reasonable use cases for them passively, are also probably *very* rare:\n\n> Animal Handling, Arcana, History, Religion.\n\nThat pretty much leaves the following as far as stuff that could \"normally\" be used passively:\n\n> Insight, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Survival.\n\nOne slightly uncommon instance I *do* like as far as using a score passively, however, is Survival. It can allow a character to innately notice things that are a just a bit off in nature, such as broken branches or disturbed earth, even if they are not actively tracking another creature or foraging or etc.\n\n***\n\nOverall though, I do have one big problem with passive scores:\n\n**The DM knows exactly what they are for the party and, unless they run with some RNG DCs, basically decide at encounter creation if the party succeeds or not, except when the checks are contested.**\n\nThis is why passive Perception vs active Stealth and passive Insight vs active Deception are two of the only actually common use cases for passive scores. Even passive Investigation, probably the 3rd most common by a mile, is rare to contest against anything - so it basically just boils down to \"this is how much I (the DM) want to reveal to the party passively, and the rest will require an active check as a follow-up.\""
},
{
"body": "I mostly agree with the opening post. However, one thing bothered me a bit.\n\n\n>A comparable use case can be made for Dexterity (Stealth), especially as it pertains to groups travelling stealthily over long times/distances.\n\nYou already mentioned passive Wisdom (Perception). Having both sides of a contest being passive is a big no-no. When two passives compete, there's no roll and the highest bonus always wins.\n\nTo set expectations for randomness at my tables, I had the rule that EVERY roll was always active vs passive. As one example, there was no such thing as a passive Dexterity (Stealth) score, because it was always an actual Stealth roll vs a passive Wisdom (Perception) score — kind of like how an Attack is always against a passive AC, and a saving throw is always against a passive spell DC. Non-player characters would have a passive Initiative, etc, and so on. This kept things a little bit random without having those 1% bad luck moments when a character with a huge bonus rolls a 3 and the monster rolls an 18. As a summary, active vs active is too hot, passive vs passive is way too cold, and active vs passive is just right.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "[deleted]",
"replies": [
{
"body": ">passive skills don't affect them unless everyone decides to waive actions and use the \"auto-resolve\" benefit of employing pre-factored passive skill \n\nBy \"everyone\", do you mean \"all players\", or do you mean \"all competing sides\"? \n\nIf you mean \"all players\", then this is a method of streamlining play by buffing the players some. I don't personally like that kind of thing, but it's not an uncommon thing to do or wrong or whatever. I'd prefer that the rules be spread out without giving any undo notability to the PCs. \n\nIf instead you mean 'all participants in the check', then I'll point out that this is always wrong for one of the sides, because a passive comparison will always result in one side losing. As such, that side should always advocate for an active roll, as it gives them a nonzero chance of success. \n\nI don't like the sound of this houserule honestly.",
"replies": [
{
"body": "That's why it consistently always has to be one side of the contest that's active. Just for consistency of nothing else. Like Stealth always being active, Perception against it always being passive. Or vice versa, so long as it's always clear what the active side is.\n\nImagine if your DM ruled a situation was that your active Armor Class roll went against a passive Attack check. Even if he had good sounding reasons, it'd just be too confusing."
}
]
},
{
"body": "Passive perception is what you see when you walk into a room and aren't trying to search. Active perception is what you find when you're searching. Passive perception isn't a floor on active perception, active perception is how well you see hidden details you'd miss on a first glance.\n\nHow does this work with passive stealth? Passive stealth would be how stealthy you are when you aren't trying, but if you roll a 1 for your stealth vs your passive stealth 14, how does this make sense? If your passive perception is 13 and my passive stealth is 14, how does it make sense that once I tried to hide, I made myself more visible because I rolled a 12? Not only narratively, but also mechanically, this seems disappointing."
}
]
},
{
"body": "I use passive Stealth in overland travel, as a measure of how quiet they are when it's not their primary focus:\n\nTwo parties approach each other, Party A and Party B. I compare each party's passive Stealth to the other party's passive Perception. If neither Stealth is higher, both parties know about each other. If *both* Stealths are higher, the parties don't know about each other and may even pass each other by.\n\nIf party A's Stealth beats party B's passive Perception, then A may make a Stealth roll; if the roll *also* beats B's passive Perception, then A may elect to evade B, set up an ambush, or whatever they choose to try."
}
]
},
{
"body": ">Assume each character has a passive Wisdom (Insight) skill \"activated\"\n\nUh, they do? Passive skills are always 'on'."
},
{
"body": "I have a list of skills that each of my players are trained in and like use them as passive skills when they need a hint or a nudge."
},
{
"body": "Inwas thinking about this. A passive arcana or history would be nice too, to just sprinkle around hints of lore or magical knowledge."
},
{
"body": "I don't use passive skills, I have my players roll when a skill check is needed or when it isnt. Keeps them on their toes. Plus, people like rolling dice."
},
{
"body": "Passive dick size?"
},
{
"body": "I've been developing a Player Acting Last (PAL) rule: The PC that acts last rolls against a passive DC. Advantages/disadvantages for the DC become disadvantages/advantages for the roller, respectively.\n\nThe players never get meta-knowledge, because they only roll when their character is actively attempting to do something. You never roll against a liar; the liar rolls against you.\n\nDMs can't roll quietly behind a screen and say you take damage without asking if anyone reacts to an attack, which is occasionally bothersome. The DM says something attacks you, and you roll AC (d20 instead of the flat 10, nat1 means you get crit) against 10+attack bonus, giving a natural pause for people to declare reactions. However, the PCs still roll attacks against NPCs. This delegates more rolling to the players, which in my experience is far more fun than being told I take damage, and makes the DM's job easier. It's also more cinematic to think of your character dodging/blocking attacks rather than hoping they don't get hit.\n\nPCs get a slight edge in conflicts, because the roller only has to tie the DC to pass. In PvP, the defender always has this edge.\n\nI do like the idea of NPCs rolling perception against passive stealth, though, which is the sort of exception that makes the PAL rule \"in development\" instead of \"in use\". I also don't like the idea of swingy PC Fireballs that either all the enemies save against or none of them do."
},
{
"body": "I like passive stealth for enemy targeting if they can't see.\nThey go for the biggest loudest thing and swing their sword."
},
{
"body": "Passive skill checks are not a tool vs metagaming, as much as won insight check does not tell you the person is lying. Gm needs to interpret those, you see the microexpressions that indicate that the person is hiding something, or not telling you the truth, or dismisses you out of spite. However passive skills allow you to adjudicate I walk into the room there's a stealthed dragon behind the chair, but my passive perception is higher than that of a brick wall so I notice that. Same as conversation skills, if your beefed up bard talks to an npc but doesn't ask for an active insight check they still get to notice obvious deception attempts."
},
{
"body": "Majority of DMs I've encountered dont even use passive skills - they just make me roll regardless.\n\nI've even questioned it before and they just fumbled and didnt answer the question. I think it's more interactive to roll for saves but I find majority of DMs I've played with dont consider passive checks."
},
{
"body": "My way for this is 8 plus their bonus to a skill is their passive and I try to use that for almost any circumstance. If someone describes what they’re doing. I’ll glance at say.. athletics. They have a +5… their absolute baseline is 13. If it’s below a dc I would set they roll. If it’s above the dc… they just carry on and I don’t ever suggest that they would need a roll. My players know I run the game that way and they appreciate gains to their skills because they can actually feel themselves getting stronger in normal situations not just damage dealt"
},
{
"body": "I think passive skills are useful for setting DCs. If you make a Deception check, you are trying to beat the target's Passive Insight. If you are trying to Sneak, you want to beat their Passive Perception. Things like that"
},
{
"body": ">\"I rolled a Nat 20 on my Insight, so I know for sure if he's lying to us or not\"\n\nWorth noting a Nat 20 does nothing special on a skill check RAW - you can't crit on anything except an attack roll or saving throw."
},
{
"body": "I have been using player passive score as a DC for me to beat. I have a system in my head where if I beat their passive by 5, they get a chance to roll for it."
},
{
"body": "We about to have people Baulders Gatekeeping now lmao."
}
]
}