Setup: Going over the first Adventure from Ghost of Saltmarsh (see a theme from my previous thread.) and I've run across some text that has always had me flip/flop on how it should be handled.
Questions: Using the examples below should I ask the player(s) to roll for the ability check without prompting or wait until the player says the course of action and it lines up with the text to give the information of which ability check to roll? What is usually the best practice in this type of wording?
Examples:
1) The alchemist kept a vegetable garden around the house, which was used as a retreat from the stress of work and as a supply of fresh food. Now, a few broken gardening tools and a tangle of weeds are all that remain. A single rosebush near the gate has overgrown the wall and choked out most of the other plants. A character who succeeds on a DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check discovers that something large has made a burrow under the rosebush.
2) A character who makes a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check while viewing the well from a distance notices a cluster of small mammal remains in the tall grass around the well (primarily mice, squirrels, and the like).
3) A character who makes a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check finds two sets of recently made humanoid tracks. One set of tracks travels from the entryway toward area 9. The second leads away from the foot of the stairs and along the western corridor toward area 4.
4) If the characters found the tracks in area 1 that lead here, they discover that the tracks continue into area 10. If they failed to find the tracks earlier, they can pick up the trail here with a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check.
Your party is probably going to have passive perception/investigation higher than the DC, so your choice is more realistically between having them automatically succeed, or wait until they instigate.
I haven't played this particular campaign, so I don't know the larger context, but it sounds like these are clues as part of some adventure hook, which implies that something in the story will encourage the players to start investigating. If that is the case, let them take the lead. If they somehow miss the hook, then feed one to the player who is proficient in Perception to put them on the trail.
A rule of thumb is to make progressing the adventure seem like it's the player's idea. Give them a subtle reason to propose the course of action you want them to take, and then reward them for doing so.
Finding something under the rose bush, since it is going to be concealed at least somewhat, would imply active looking -- I'd only call for a roll if they say they are digging around, looking under things, examining, etc.
Viewing the well "from a distance" - this is a strange description since the bones are near the well. Very odd. But it implies that if they look around the well or at the well or toward the well in any way, you'd call for a roll. I might go passive on this one though normally I just call for rolls.
Humanoid tracks - again I'd say you need active searching in the ground for "clues" or something indicating they are actively looking around. Then you call for a roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The examples you've given do lead themselves to be open for interpretation. I tend to follow a simple rule of thumb when thinking about perception/investigation rolls. First however, I will also give a distinction to both.
Perception is what you see by turning your head, Investigation is what you see when you manipulate something.
Tl;Dr: Check passives and, if successful, give the information. If the players state they are looking, verify if they're manipulating anything, have them roll perception/investigation respectively.
When a person walks into a scene, and the book defines a perception check, you check your passive perceptions. If the passive perception meets, or exceeds, the number given then the player notices something about what is described. Example 1 with the burrow: "You notice there's a spot in the bush that is darker than the rest of it". Perception will allow them to notice something, not necessarily recognize it. Once they approach, or say they are looking closer, you can give them the rest of the information. If their passives do not meet the number given, they notice nothing.
If they say something along the lines of "I walk around the yard and look for anything out of the ordinary", clarify if they are touching anything. If the answer is no, then you have them roll Perception and compare it to the number given.
If they say that they are touching, moving, or otherwise manipulating stuff in the scene, then have them roll investigation and compare it to the number given (if you're only given a perception check, use the same number for investigation.)
---
This same mode of thought can be used for pretty much any skill that the players have, though some skills don't lend themselves well to a passive check such as Athletics.
Picking up on something said above, if it looks like the group may not investigate, you can always throw in a breadcrumb.
Pick the person with the highest investigation and tell them that something looks a little off to them about the rose bushes. They'll probably take that cue and check them out properly.
Setup: Going over the first Adventure from Ghost of Saltmarsh (see a theme from my previous thread.) and I've run across some text that has always had me flip/flop on how it should be handled.
Questions: Using the examples below should I ask the player(s) to roll for the ability check without prompting or wait until the player says the course of action and it lines up with the text to give the information of which ability check to roll? What is usually the best practice in this type of wording?
In my opinion, it depends on what type of skill check is used and what the character might have to do to receive an opportunity for such a skill check.
Examples:
1) The alchemist kept a vegetable garden around the house, which was used as a retreat from the stress of work and as a supply of fresh food. Now, a few broken gardening tools and a tangle of weeds are all that remain. A single rosebush near the gate has overgrown the wall and choked out most of the other plants. A character who succeeds on a DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check discovers that something large has made a burrow under the rosebush.
In this case, if the characters say they are searching the garden or otherwise inspecting then I would mention that the ground near the Rosebush appears to be disturbed. Depending on whether the character decides to look for details like tracks I would use survival if they try to figure out what is unusual then I would use investigation.
2) A character who makes a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check while viewing the well from a distance notices a cluster of small mammal remains in the tall grass around the well (primarily mice, squirrels, and the like).
If the characters are looking around the garden I would use passive perception - allow a roll if passives aren't high enough.
3) A character who makes a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check finds two sets of recently made humanoid tracks. One set of tracks travels from the entryway toward area 9. The second leads away from the foot of the stairs and along the western corridor toward area 4.
If the characters are looking around - they get the skill check - depending on what they decide to look for it will be investigation or survival. Alternatively, I might just use passive skills if the character is taking the appropriate action.
4) If the characters found the tracks in area 1 that lead here, they discover that the tracks continue into area 10. If they failed to find the tracks earlier, they can pick up the trail here with a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check.
If the characters look around they get a roll. If they just walk in without searching they don't.
Keep in mind that these DCs are so low that your party will likely find the tracks. This means that they will likely find the trap door, set off the magic mouth, and descend into the basement facing the prepared bandits. At level 1, this can go very badly.
Picking up on something said above, if it looks like the group may not investigate, you can always throw in a breadcrumb.
Pick the person with the highest investigation and tell them that something looks a little off to them about the rose bushes. They'll probably take that cue and check them out properly.
This got me thinking about that one line on the DDB character sheet "PASSIVE INT (INVESTIGATION)" if that is something people readily use.
For the longest time I felt that passive Investigation was a joke. I believe I phrased it "How does one just absent mindedly start tossing a house to find something they're looking for".
It took me doing something without thinking to realize that a passive Investigation is really a thing. I was sitting at a friend's house talking about stuff and found myself just picking things up, idly looking at them, and then putting them back. At one point in time I picked up a book and started talking about it to my buddy, and he got all excited. Apparently he had misplaced the book and couldn't figure out where it had gone, and my idle hands happened to find it. BOOM! It clicked, that was, oddly enough, passive Investigation.
It is possible to make most checks passive, some more than others, but it is doable.
DM 101 Question:
Setup: Going over the first Adventure from Ghost of Saltmarsh (see a theme from my previous thread.) and I've run across some text that has always had me flip/flop on how it should be handled.
Questions: Using the examples below should I ask the player(s) to roll for the ability check without prompting or wait until the player says the course of action and it lines up with the text to give the information of which ability check to roll? What is usually the best practice in this type of wording?
Examples:
1) The alchemist kept a vegetable garden around the house, which was used as a retreat from the stress of work and as a supply of fresh food. Now, a few broken gardening tools and a tangle of weeds are all that remain. A single rosebush near the gate has overgrown the wall and choked out most of the other plants. A character who succeeds on a DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check discovers that something large has made a burrow under the rosebush.
2) A character who makes a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check while viewing the well from a distance notices a cluster of small mammal remains in the tall grass around the well (primarily mice, squirrels, and the like).
3) A character who makes a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check finds two sets of recently made humanoid tracks. One set of tracks travels from the entryway toward area 9. The second leads away from the foot of the stairs and along the western corridor toward area 4.
4) If the characters found the tracks in area 1 that lead here, they discover that the tracks continue into area 10. If they failed to find the tracks earlier, they can pick up the trail here with a successful DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) or Wisdom (Survival) check.
Your party is probably going to have passive perception/investigation higher than the DC, so your choice is more realistically between having them automatically succeed, or wait until they instigate.
I haven't played this particular campaign, so I don't know the larger context, but it sounds like these are clues as part of some adventure hook, which implies that something in the story will encourage the players to start investigating. If that is the case, let them take the lead. If they somehow miss the hook, then feed one to the player who is proficient in Perception to put them on the trail.
A rule of thumb is to make progressing the adventure seem like it's the player's idea. Give them a subtle reason to propose the course of action you want them to take, and then reward them for doing so.
Finding something under the rose bush, since it is going to be concealed at least somewhat, would imply active looking -- I'd only call for a roll if they say they are digging around, looking under things, examining, etc.
Viewing the well "from a distance" - this is a strange description since the bones are near the well. Very odd. But it implies that if they look around the well or at the well or toward the well in any way, you'd call for a roll. I might go passive on this one though normally I just call for rolls.
Humanoid tracks - again I'd say you need active searching in the ground for "clues" or something indicating they are actively looking around. Then you call for a roll.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The examples you've given do lead themselves to be open for interpretation. I tend to follow a simple rule of thumb when thinking about perception/investigation rolls. First however, I will also give a distinction to both.
Perception is what you see by turning your head, Investigation is what you see when you manipulate something.
Tl;Dr: Check passives and, if successful, give the information. If the players state they are looking, verify if they're manipulating anything, have them roll perception/investigation respectively.
When a person walks into a scene, and the book defines a perception check, you check your passive perceptions. If the passive perception meets, or exceeds, the number given then the player notices something about what is described. Example 1 with the burrow: "You notice there's a spot in the bush that is darker than the rest of it". Perception will allow them to notice something, not necessarily recognize it. Once they approach, or say they are looking closer, you can give them the rest of the information. If their passives do not meet the number given, they notice nothing.
If they say something along the lines of "I walk around the yard and look for anything out of the ordinary", clarify if they are touching anything. If the answer is no, then you have them roll Perception and compare it to the number given.
If they say that they are touching, moving, or otherwise manipulating stuff in the scene, then have them roll investigation and compare it to the number given (if you're only given a perception check, use the same number for investigation.)
---
This same mode of thought can be used for pretty much any skill that the players have, though some skills don't lend themselves well to a passive check such as Athletics.
Live play, at the table Twitch stream.
Find out all about us at: www.dragonsinthediningroom.com
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPicking up on something said above, if it looks like the group may not investigate, you can always throw in a breadcrumb.
Pick the person with the highest investigation and tell them that something looks a little off to them about the rose bushes. They'll probably take that cue and check them out properly.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
In my opinion, it depends on what type of skill check is used and what the character might have to do to receive an opportunity for such a skill check.
In this case, if the characters say they are searching the garden or otherwise inspecting then I would mention that the ground near the Rosebush appears to be disturbed. Depending on whether the character decides to look for details like tracks I would use survival if they try to figure out what is unusual then I would use investigation.
If the characters are looking around the garden I would use passive perception - allow a roll if passives aren't high enough.
If the characters are looking around - they get the skill check - depending on what they decide to look for it will be investigation or survival. Alternatively, I might just use passive skills if the character is taking the appropriate action.
If the characters look around they get a roll. If they just walk in without searching they don't.
Keep in mind that these DCs are so low that your party will likely find the tracks. This means that they will likely find the trap door, set off the magic mouth, and descend into the basement facing the prepared bandits. At level 1, this can go very badly.
This got me thinking about that one line on the DDB character sheet "PASSIVE INT (INVESTIGATION)" if that is something people readily use.
For the longest time I felt that passive Investigation was a joke. I believe I phrased it "How does one just absent mindedly start tossing a house to find something they're looking for".
It took me doing something without thinking to realize that a passive Investigation is really a thing. I was sitting at a friend's house talking about stuff and found myself just picking things up, idly looking at them, and then putting them back. At one point in time I picked up a book and started talking about it to my buddy, and he got all excited. Apparently he had misplaced the book and couldn't figure out where it had gone, and my idle hands happened to find it. BOOM! It clicked, that was, oddly enough, passive Investigation.
It is possible to make most checks passive, some more than others, but it is doable.
Live play, at the table Twitch stream.
Find out all about us at: www.dragonsinthediningroom.com