Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Failed passive checks should not be shown, and shouldn't be rolls in the first place.

This has been being brought up since the beginning of early access, it is NUTS to me that the game still works the way it does.

When a person fails to notice something, they just fail to notice it. They don't also notice that they didn't notice.
Noticing that you didn't notice, is the same as noticing. It invalidates the very premise of having not noticed.

You are not supposed to enter a room and know that you didn't see the traps. You're supposed to enter, think there aren't any, and set them off.
You are not supposed to walk down a path and randomly realize there's a buried chest you can't dig up. You're supposed to walk by and never be aware there was something to find.
Instead, when entering a room, you always know there's traps; the perception check is irrelevant.
Instead, you always know when there's something buried, and just just go back and forth to camp until someone makes it diggable.
We always know somebody is lying, regardless of insight checks. As soon as there is a check, you know. There's no need to pass the check.

And on top of the sheer idiotic design of being shown failed passive rolls, they aren't even supposed to be rolls in the first place.
Rolling is only supposed to be for things a character actively does, in response to player decision in the pc's case.
Passive checks are supposed to be the dc vs a flat passive stat.
That's how you mechanically reflect the unintentional and automatic aspect of what passive checks are, as opposed to the willful and manual aspects that bring rolling to regular checks.

Edit just to plug the following:
In such an rpg, whether tabletop or video game, anything that doesn't happen for the character shouldn't happen for the player either.

They player shouldn't see anything the character doesn't. The player shouldn't know anything the character doesn't.
How many times have I pressed buttons or pulled levers because the character's failed perception check was irrelevant, because I had already seen it myself, since it wasn't actually hidden?
If something is supposed to be hidden, actually hide it, so I can't just see it on camera after failed checks.
Conversely, I do appreciate the existence of detection and ping playing out for the player, in that if something is *not* supposed to be hidden, i.e. the character is meant to be able to see and interact with it without having to pass a check, then the player should see it too. In which case passing the passive check in the game is akin to a dm just saying "you see a lever" with no check in tabletop. And in this case, the check should be auto-passed.

I think there is a mod for that.
Should have been in the options.

It's not an oversight. it works this way by design.
Because it's a GAME, so if you don't make the player at least tangentially aware that they are missing out on something, you'll have hordes of people stuck and raging sometime later "HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT I MISSED SOMETHING IN THAT AREA?"

Anyway, yes, it's a mod and one of the fastest ones that we got after the release.

Whats the point of traps when you notice them by 4 failed perception checks when you approached that floor feature?

If no one notices a trap, it's noticed when it goes off. Sounds like it's working as intended.

Larian should just have the backbone to let gen Z rage how unfair it is that they aren't revealed what they shouldn't know, because they know from YT there's a secret door. If you don't have the guts to keep secret or hidden things actually hidden, don't put them in the game to begin with.

So yes, I fully support the OP and don't personally want to know when there's something the party failed to notice. Because given that information, I WILL bring the entire team down there with Guidance one by one, because that's how the game is encouraging me to play i.e. cheat. And it doesn't feel great.

The game should use more passive skill checks in many cases. There are situations when it makes sense people with a high skill level always "got it" while people with zero skill and a negative modifier can't just luck it out. That said, Perception should be a bit random by nature, while Investigation and actively searching less so.

Everyone fails but you still know there's a trap, so you trigger it with Mage Hand from a safe distance. Certainly not even worth having these skills in the game when failure is in fact, a success.

Eh, it's been a thing for way longer than this game.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html

Ok sure but I play it as if no one noticed it. I know it's there but my characters don't.

I mean, I see it as failure so won't do anything to alleviate it.

There are other ways to bypass failure in the game. I'm sure there are plenty of people who savescum for everything.

That's how it *should* work is what I was saying.
It's not how it *does* work.
How it does work is that you notice not noticing, which just means you notice the trap, so you don't set it off. You avoid the spot where it would be, with needing it revealed the "detected" way.
or just swap out party members from camp until someone does make it visible.

I'm fine with it as it is, at least without the option to ask a DM if I can roll an active perception, religion or whatever check. I think I'd find that lack irritating if I didn't get some reassurance that my party were trying to investigate the environment, even if they didn't notice anything interesting. I personally don't reload if I fail checks.

I agree those rolls are a bit of a weird hybrid of passive and active checks, but think it's s reasonable compromise rather than adding the complexity of being able to choose to make active rolls at any point.

I like the fails. Helps when I go there with a different character.

It's weak dming, and poor gameplaying. Failing is part of the game. Not seeing all the content is logical. It's life. But, not the end of the world.

All this does is promote bad sportsmanship, anybody who plays by truly immersing with the character will not play any different, but it does make people savescum, or check for traps when they shouldn't've been told of them in the first place.

That is exactly how I thought about it as well. Since there is no way for me as a player to say, "Hey, DM, I'd like to investigate the area for clues." These "quasi-active" checks are a decent solution. As a tabletop DM I have actually made active rolls behind the screen for my players when their passive check wouldn't beat a DC, but I know their character has a history of being cautious and scouring areas for danger. The results of those rolls behind the screen can be much the same. My players see me roll dice without saying anything, and in many cases their immediate response is, "I'd like to search for traps," or something similar.

Interesting side-note with mild spoilers.

I would rather assume everyone is constantly actively searching.

Adding an action that would Investigate a certain radius wouldn't be difficult to do either. And could actually be quite immersive.

Both options would be better than what we have now.

I'd like it if there were two difficulties, a lower one to notice something isn't right and a higher one to reveal the trap. You get the failed dice roll if you get between, say, 10-14 and get the success dice roll if you get a 15 or higher. (And nothing if you get a 9 or less.)

I agree with Red Queen on this one.
In PnP you'd have an active way to ask the DM for an "info-acquiring" skill check and he will tell you to roll. You know what the equivalent would be in BG3? Clicking your shovel every 2 steps to make sure you didn't just walk past some hidden treasure.
I would rather have it work passively and provide reassurance even on a fail rather than have to walk on every single cell of a grid because I don't know if I failed the check or just haven't triggered it yet.

i would support this.

No, it would be an Investigate Action that would search in a 18m radius. Search the area.

Which could easily just be abstracted into characters doing it everywhere automatically.

Perhaps the best way would be to just reduce the radius of a fully automated search. Teach the player to move their characters closer to the wall they want to look into. It would be the most intuitive and player convenient way, without any extra buttons, while having the feeling that you are searching.

Point remains, the player should not know anything if the characters don't know.