How does the math for Passive Perception get affected in situations like with Reliable Talent or Ear for Deceit?

3 thoughts on “How does the math for Passive Perception get affected in situations like with Reliable Talent or Ear for Deceit?

  1. D. Walker says:

    “It’s not based off average rolls, it’s just based off 10.”

    That’s total nonsense.

    Basing it off 10 (and the concept of “Taking 10” from prior editions) indisputably stems -directly- from calculating the average roll of a d20.

    The numerical average is 10.5, and historically the default has been to round down, and thus you arrive at 10 as an “average roll” for anything where you want to approximate a die roll without actually rolling dice.

    The entire point of “passive perception” is approximate a die roll without actually rolling any dice, because 1) rolling dice takes time and can slow down play needlessly and 2) because the very act of calling for a perception check implies to players that there is something to be perceived.

    Passive perception exists to avoid tipping players off to the fact that they’ve failed to notice something. It is intended to replace actual die rolls, and “taking 10” is intended to replicate an “average” result of said die rolls.

    • Ben Reilly says:

      I can never get enough of this dude’s dipshit takes. It’s like getting a peek into a dimension of pure unlogic.

      • D. Walker says:

        No need for name calling, but yeah, I find both Dillon and Crawford to both be infuriating in their bizarre opinions and rationales behind choices.

        Both of them rely way too much on “This is just how the rules are” as a way to avoid actually explaining the thinking behind something.

        Crawford in particular emphasizes how 5E supposedly was built to intentionally use “natuaral language”, and then gets frustrated with players when people can’t parse what exactly the rules mean, precisely because the natural language used is vague and open to multiple interpretations.

        It’s super frustrating that he seems to feel there is an absolute correct way to read the rules, but then refuses to write the rules with accurate, technical, unambiguous language that won’t confuse readers. He lacks clarity in his writing, but expects people to understand what he intended.

        Writing rules is hard. I know from experience. I don’t blame him for not writing perfect rules. But I do take issue with his refusal to admit that his rules are sometimes flawed, and instead blaming players for not understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.