I don't generally use passive scores. The only reason I started was in response to two players who took feats to increase them. I wanted to validate those choices.
If you don't use passive scores then the feats are pretty useless in your game since they won't do anything ... EXCEPT ... you go on to say that you actually apply passive investigation exactly as it is intended to be used .. so I am confused. You don't use passive investigation but then you do :)
The wizard in my campaign has a passive investigation of 24 and the Investigator background. I give him unprompted information about clues in a room, connections between concepts he's researching, and (because he's a wizard) insight into how magic objects or spells interact to stimuli - particularly with respect to traps. If there's a pattern to notice or a logical deduction to make, his wizard gets the first crack at it.
Giving extra information to a character with a high passive score who is taking actions or always aware looking around and thinking IS using passive investigation. The only difference is that you did not consciously assign a DC to the items the character notices. If you set a DC, it would be higher than the passive investigation of the other characters in the party but lower than the passive investigation of the wizard. When taking an appropriate action (for example, they wouldn't usually pick up on things with their eyes closed or while distracted), the wizard notices more, and figures out more information than another character.
The wizard has a better chance at figuring things out than the barbarian with 8 int. The wizard has a chance to figure it out first because of their high passive score. Only when the wizard can't figure something out - or there is a time limit or consequence - then the characters might all make a die roll. The wizard likely still has the highest modifier but in a crunch the barbarian could get lucky while the wizard misses the obvious.
Anyway, what you appear to do is apply passive investigation as intended, the only difference is that you haven't explicitly set a DC for finding the information which is also perfectly ok - you figure the DC is above that for the rest of the party but below the very high bar set by the wizard.
I said I started using passives because they took the feats, and the rest of my post explains how I do so. I'm not sure why you're confused.
Sorry - obvious lack of reading comprehension skills when reading quickly.
I think what you currently are doing with passive skills makes sense and the examples you gave were handling it very well.
However, I think it would be worth doing even without characters who enhanced those skills with feats. A rogue, bard, knowledge cleric or others with expertise will often have higher passive scores than those who take the feats (depending on stats etc) and I would think they would deserve the same consideration as any other character who invested resources into a skill or other ability.
Personally, I like the passive skills because a character who is really good at something will often be the one to prevail with passive skills but fail when the dice are rolled and I find those rolled results to be disruptive to a narrative if they happen too often.
For example, I've seen the 8 int barbarian succeed in an arcana check by rolling well while the knowledge cleric in the party with expertise in the skill failed. Most of the time the knowledge cleric with the much higher passive score should succeed without a roll while the barbarian stands there looking confused and perhaps on a rare occurrence the barbarian might be able to figure it out while the knowledge cleric (or rogue or bard) doesn't. On the other hand, if dice are rolled for every check then the unusual situations become relatively common place and the character with a high skill wonders why they bothered if the DM is just going to let the whole party roll and someone who rolls high is the one who is successful at the task.
- 8 str character opens the door that the 18 str character failed
- 8 cha character convinces the guard to take a break when the 20 cha character doesn't manage it
- 8 int barbarian deduces how to use the magical puzzle while the 20 int wizard stares at it wondering how it works
These things are fine on a very rare basis, they often provide comic relief, but I find they become a problem when every check is rolled.
I use it the same way I use any passive roll - either for repeated actions (for example if the characters are searching an entire room I'm not going to ask for a die roll for every single thing in the room) or for when I want to keep the existence of the check a secret from players (usually I'm doing this to maintain flow at the table, rather than interrupting by asking for a die roll).
The problem with using passive scores to smooth game flow is that with passive scores there are really only two choices:
The DC is less than or equal to the best passive score, and the PCs automatically notice it.
The DC is greater than the best passive score, and the PCs automatically miss it, unless they spam rolls, in which case game flow isn't smoothed.
Neither is particularly good game play (there is in principle a third category: the PCs automatically notice if they eliminate a source of disadvantage, such as darkness. This is somewhat useful against parties that try to do things with darkvision and no light source).
One idea I've considered is to change secrets from having a detect DC to a hide bonus, so a Medium secret, instead of being DC 15, has a deception or stealth check of +5, and then roll against the party.
Incidentally, here's the distinction I make between the passive scores
If it's hard to detect a thing, that's perception.
If it's hard to recognize the importance of a thing, that's investigation.
If you're wondering about a creature's emotional state or intentions, that's insight.
Certain checks might allow either skill (use the higher) or require both skills (use the lower). Sometimes one or the other skill will have disadvantage, possibly changing which is higher. Or you can set it to Either (with disadvantage) or Both (without).
Determining when enemies Investigate illusions. So if an enemy has a higher passive than the illusions dc they use their action to investigate the illusion at the first opportunity. I similarly give players hint that something is is an illusion if it's high enough. Personally I'd make this a Perception check
When some one rolls deception against something the defender choses the highest of passive insight or investigation if applicable that skill is applicable. So investigation picks out logical inconsistencies and alike in lies. This would be an Insight check
Passive investigation can be used in place of passive perception to oppose hiding if you know to look. For example if they hide in combat Again, this is Perception
I also use passives as a floor for skills. If your passive is higher than a dc you will succeed but a failure on the roll means it takes longer or has some negative consequence. If the passive is low then failure can mean being locked out of doing that check again ( ie auto failing future checks) . This is a good way to use Passive Perception/Investigation, I like it.
I find perception and insight are really over used for things they really shouldn't do and investigation and other knowledge skills are ignored as a consequence.
If you read the rules for investigation you can see it includes both collecting and interpreting information. Its as much about knowing where/ what to look for as it is about how to interpret it.
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Perception on the other hand is a more generalized spotting of things that isn't about any specific knowledge of what you are looking for.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Insight is about understanding the person, their motivations and actions. Its not really about what they are saying.
Insight
Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
here's an examination of the situations I described and why I think investigation applies
Illusion
Detecting illusions is investigation and not perception because its not about seeing better to see through the illusion but is about detecting mistakes an inconsistencies. In other words it's about looking for clues and making deductions about them. For example with an illusory fire its not that you some how see or feel better to get through the illusiont it's that you know when you should be feeling heat and you aren't so that makes you suspicious.
Hiding
Investigation in the rules literally says "You might deduce the location of a hidden object" it seems weird to exclude creatures from that. The reason it makes sense for this to be an intelligence skill is that it's about deducing from the evidence where a person could be based on where you last saw them or where the last projectile came from.
False information and lieing
This is where intelligence and tools proficiency should really shine but there is a misconception that insight is a lie detector that has it steal the spot light. People acknowledge that it's about knowledge when things are written down for example if you have a book with a spell in it most dms will have you make an arcana check lets you determine if the spell works or not but when it comes to conversation about magic people tend to throw this away in favor of insight. Investigation and insight are merely two of many skills you could roll in a conversation to gain information or determine a lie. My rule of thumb for where insight is that it can only tell you about the person in the moment, how they feel, they're personality and how the speak. Where as actually noticing anything incorrect in what they say requires the relevant tool or arcana proficiency if its specialty knowledge or investigation if it's something like comparing it to other evidence you've collected like other people stories.
So investigation might tell you that the baker and the butchers stories conflict. Insight tells you that the baker seems nervous. Cooking tools tells you that it doesn't take as long as they claim to make a cake. Together they give you a clear idea and evidence that the baker is lieing.
Admittedly, I make less uses of passive investigation than I do passive pereception, but that is probably more a reflection of the types of environments that the party is moving around in. Spotting the trap is perception
Figuring out how it works to lock it or disable it is the investigation part
I sometimes mix up passive and active by asking the characters to pre-roll a set of 5 perception and/or investigation skills. If the roll lower than their passive, they use the passive value, and if they roll higher, they get to keep that.
This mixes in the ability to spot a trap or deduct how something works without halting gameplay for characters to roll (and effectively put a giant neon sign up saying "Hey - there's something worth checking out right here!")
I use passive Intelligence (Investigation) check to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret door or hidden compartments, as well as trying to figure a way to open one. Ways to disarm or bypass traps. Anything worth taking the Search action with plenty of time on hand to retry with possibility of failure.
I also use passive Intelligence (Investigation) check when i want to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, like noticing hidden or unreal things such as determining if an illusion or hidden object and passage is detected without alerting the player. To recall a detail forgotten, piece togheter info or figure a clue missing or overlooked, or to see if deduction can be made.
And any other time an active Intelligence (Investigation) check can be made.
Determining when enemies Investigate illusions. So if an enemy has a higher passive than the illusions dc they use their action to investigate the illusion at the first opportunity. I similarly give players hint that something is is an illusion if it's high enough. Personally I'd make this a Perception check
When some one rolls deception against something the defender choses the highest of passive insight or investigation if applicable that skill is applicable. So investigation picks out logical inconsistencies and alike in lies. This would be an Insight check
Passive investigation can be used in place of passive perception to oppose hiding if you know to look. For example if they hide in combat Again, this is Perception
I also use passives as a floor for skills. If your passive is higher than a dc you will succeed but a failure on the roll means it takes longer or has some negative consequence. If the passive is low then failure can mean being locked out of doing that check again ( ie auto failing future checks) . This is a good way to use Passive Perception/Investigation, I like it.
I find perception and insight are really over used for things they really shouldn't do and investigation and other knowledge skills are ignored as a consequence.
If you read the rules for investigation you can see it includes both collecting and interpreting information. Its as much about knowing where/ what to look for as it is about how to interpret it.
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Perception on the other hand is a more generalized spotting of things that isn't about any specific knowledge of what you are looking for.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Insight is about understanding the person, their motivations and actions. Its not really about what they are saying.
Insight
Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
here's an examination of the situations I described and why I think investigation applies
Illusion
Detecting illusions is investigation and not perception because its not about seeing better to see through the illusion but is about detecting mistakes an inconsistencies. In other words it's about looking for clues and making deductions about them. For example with an illusory fire its not that you some how see or feel better to get through the illusiont it's that you know when you should be feeling heat and you aren't so that makes you suspicious.
Hiding
Investigation in the rules literally says "You might deduce the location of a hidden object" it seems weird to exclude creatures from that. The reason it makes sense for this to be an intelligence skill is that it's about deducing from the evidence where a person could be based on where you last saw them or where the last projectile came from.
False information and lieing
This is where intelligence and tools proficiency should really shine but there is a misconception that insight is a lie detector that has it steal the spot light. People acknowledge that it's about knowledge when things are written down for example if you have a book with a spell in it most dms will have you make an arcana check lets you determine if the spell works or not but when it comes to conversation about magic people tend to throw this away in favor of insight. Investigation and insight are merely two of many skills you could roll in a conversation to gain information or determine a lie. My rule of thumb for where insight is that it can only tell you about the person in the moment, how they feel, they're personality and how the speak. Where as actually noticing anything incorrect in what they say requires the relevant tool or arcana proficiency if its specialty knowledge or investigation if it's something like comparing it to other evidence you've collected like other people stories.
So investigation might tell you that the baker and the butchers stories conflict. Insight tells you that the baker seems nervous. Cooking tools tells you that it doesn't take as long as they claim to make a cake. Together they give you a clear idea and evidence that the baker is lieing.
Deducing the location of a hidden object means that Passive Perception cannot detect things that it cannot sense. ie. if you cannot see a thing, then you can't detect it with perception. Investigation could be used to deduce why something isn't reacting like it should. It would be like figuring out there is something hidden because the water displacement in a tub of water is off or that air currents can be felt in a place that has no draft.
It isn't used to spot someone being sneaky in the bushes or to hear someone sneaking up on you. If you were using it to detect an enemy, it would be to notice that there is something wrong about those suits of armour. Or something along those lines.
I don't mean using investigation to spot some one. I mean to deduce their location which why I said in combat. Spotting is different to knowing it's location, you don't need to see a target to know it's location and you can attack opponents you can't see if you know where they are.
If some one was invisible you'd be unable to spot them with a perception check using sight as per the rules for invisible but you could still deduce their location by following foot prints or using clues. In that scenario a player could roll perception with a sense other than sight like smell or hearing, survival to track them based on foot prints or investigation to deduce their location from an attack or something similar.
Edit: ultimately you are going to struggle to find uses for investigation if you deny it uses it explicitly says it has in it's basic rules description because it overlaps with perception. Wisdom and intelligence notoriously overlap
Intelligence (Investigation) checks aren't solely used to deduce things, they can be used when devoting your attention o finding something when taking the Search action.
Search: When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Admittedly, I make less uses of passive investigation than I do passive pereception, but that is probably more a reflection of the types of environments that the party is moving around in. Spotting the trap is perception
Figuring out how it works to lock it or disable it is the investigation part
I sometimes mix up passive and active by asking the characters to pre-roll a set of 5 perception and/or investigation skills. If the roll lower than their passive, they use the passive value, and if they roll higher, they get to keep that.
This mixes in the ability to spot a trap or deduct how something works without halting gameplay for characters to roll (and effectively put a giant neon sign up saying "Hey - there's something worth checking out right here!")
Yeah I don't like passive turning into giving everything away so I only use passives when some kind of roll is going on this includes:
When a monster/npc is rolling and I dont want the players to know. Like deception and stealth
When the player rolls I use passive to determine the result of continued checks so they don't just keep rolling until they succeed. In other words I lock out players with low passive with a fail and players with high passive will always succeed but on a low roll receive a consequence like taking more time or making allot of noise.
The only real exception I have is illusions and this is because illusions in dnd can either be really over powered or just never do anything and its unclear in the rules when a monster would investigate an illusion. Using passive to determine if a monster checks means that there are some monsters which are basically resistant to illusions and some which are vulnerable based on their passive investigation. Though illusions will almost always have some use with the monster still requiring an action action still to investigate as opposed to just using passive.
If my player want to find a trap or secret door its basically always an active check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry - obvious lack of reading comprehension skills when reading quickly.
I think what you currently are doing with passive skills makes sense and the examples you gave were handling it very well.
However, I think it would be worth doing even without characters who enhanced those skills with feats. A rogue, bard, knowledge cleric or others with expertise will often have higher passive scores than those who take the feats (depending on stats etc) and I would think they would deserve the same consideration as any other character who invested resources into a skill or other ability.
Personally, I like the passive skills because a character who is really good at something will often be the one to prevail with passive skills but fail when the dice are rolled and I find those rolled results to be disruptive to a narrative if they happen too often.
For example, I've seen the 8 int barbarian succeed in an arcana check by rolling well while the knowledge cleric in the party with expertise in the skill failed. Most of the time the knowledge cleric with the much higher passive score should succeed without a roll while the barbarian stands there looking confused and perhaps on a rare occurrence the barbarian might be able to figure it out while the knowledge cleric (or rogue or bard) doesn't. On the other hand, if dice are rolled for every check then the unusual situations become relatively common place and the character with a high skill wonders why they bothered if the DM is just going to let the whole party roll and someone who rolls high is the one who is successful at the task.
- 8 str character opens the door that the 18 str character failed
- 8 cha character convinces the guard to take a break when the 20 cha character doesn't manage it
- 8 int barbarian deduces how to use the magical puzzle while the 20 int wizard stares at it wondering how it works
These things are fine on a very rare basis, they often provide comic relief, but I find they become a problem when every check is rolled.
I use it the same way I use any passive roll - either for repeated actions (for example if the characters are searching an entire room I'm not going to ask for a die roll for every single thing in the room) or for when I want to keep the existence of the check a secret from players (usually I'm doing this to maintain flow at the table, rather than interrupting by asking for a die roll).
The problem with using passive scores to smooth game flow is that with passive scores there are really only two choices:
Neither is particularly good game play (there is in principle a third category: the PCs automatically notice if they eliminate a source of disadvantage, such as darkness. This is somewhat useful against parties that try to do things with darkvision and no light source).
One idea I've considered is to change secrets from having a detect DC to a hide bonus, so a Medium secret, instead of being DC 15, has a deception or stealth check of +5, and then roll against the party.
Incidentally, here's the distinction I make between the passive scores
I find perception and insight are really over used for things they really shouldn't do and investigation and other knowledge skills are ignored as a consequence.
If you read the rules for investigation you can see it includes both collecting and interpreting information. Its as much about knowing where/ what to look for as it is about how to interpret it.
Perception on the other hand is a more generalized spotting of things that isn't about any specific knowledge of what you are looking for.
Insight is about understanding the person, their motivations and actions. Its not really about what they are saying.
here's an examination of the situations I described and why I think investigation applies
Illusion
Detecting illusions is investigation and not perception because its not about seeing better to see through the illusion but is about detecting mistakes an inconsistencies. In other words it's about looking for clues and making deductions about them. For example with an illusory fire its not that you some how see or feel better to get through the illusiont it's that you know when you should be feeling heat and you aren't so that makes you suspicious.
Hiding
Investigation in the rules literally says "You might deduce the location of a hidden object" it seems weird to exclude creatures from that. The reason it makes sense for this to be an intelligence skill is that it's about deducing from the evidence where a person could be based on where you last saw them or where the last projectile came from.
False information and lieing
This is where intelligence and tools proficiency should really shine but there is a misconception that insight is a lie detector that has it steal the spot light. People acknowledge that it's about knowledge when things are written down for example if you have a book with a spell in it most dms will have you make an arcana check lets you determine if the spell works or not but when it comes to conversation about magic people tend to throw this away in favor of insight. Investigation and insight are merely two of many skills you could roll in a conversation to gain information or determine a lie. My rule of thumb for where insight is that it can only tell you about the person in the moment, how they feel, they're personality and how the speak. Where as actually noticing anything incorrect in what they say requires the relevant tool or arcana proficiency if its specialty knowledge or investigation if it's something like comparing it to other evidence you've collected like other people stories.
So investigation might tell you that the baker and the butchers stories conflict. Insight tells you that the baker seems nervous. Cooking tools tells you that it doesn't take as long as they claim to make a cake. Together they give you a clear idea and evidence that the baker is lieing.
Admittedly, I make less uses of passive investigation than I do passive pereception, but that is probably more a reflection of the types of environments that the party is moving around in. Spotting the trap is perception
Figuring out how it works to lock it or disable it is the investigation part
I sometimes mix up passive and active by asking the characters to pre-roll a set of 5 perception and/or investigation skills. If the roll lower than their passive, they use the passive value, and if they roll higher, they get to keep that.
This mixes in the ability to spot a trap or deduct how something works without halting gameplay for characters to roll (and effectively put a giant neon sign up saying "Hey - there's something worth checking out right here!")
I use passive Intelligence (Investigation) check to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret door or hidden compartments, as well as trying to figure a way to open one. Ways to disarm or bypass traps. Anything worth taking the Search action with plenty of time on hand to retry with possibility of failure.
I also use passive Intelligence (Investigation) check when i want to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, like noticing hidden or unreal things such as determining if an illusion or hidden object and passage is detected without alerting the player. To recall a detail forgotten, piece togheter info or figure a clue missing or overlooked, or to see if deduction can be made.
And any other time an active Intelligence (Investigation) check can be made.
Deducing the location of a hidden object means that Passive Perception cannot detect things that it cannot sense. ie. if you cannot see a thing, then you can't detect it with perception. Investigation could be used to deduce why something isn't reacting like it should. It would be like figuring out there is something hidden because the water displacement in a tub of water is off or that air currents can be felt in a place that has no draft.
It isn't used to spot someone being sneaky in the bushes or to hear someone sneaking up on you. If you were using it to detect an enemy, it would be to notice that there is something wrong about those suits of armour. Or something along those lines.
I don't mean using investigation to spot some one. I mean to deduce their location which why I said in combat. Spotting is different to knowing it's location, you don't need to see a target to know it's location and you can attack opponents you can't see if you know where they are.
If some one was invisible you'd be unable to spot them with a perception check using sight as per the rules for invisible but you could still deduce their location by following foot prints or using clues. In that scenario a player could roll perception with a sense other than sight like smell or hearing, survival to track them based on foot prints or investigation to deduce their location from an attack or something similar.
Edit: ultimately you are going to struggle to find uses for investigation if you deny it uses it explicitly says it has in it's basic rules description because it overlaps with perception. Wisdom and intelligence notoriously overlap
Intelligence (Investigation) checks aren't solely used to deduce things, they can be used when devoting your attention o finding something when taking the Search action.
Yeah I don't like passive turning into giving everything away so I only use passives when some kind of roll is going on this includes:
The only real exception I have is illusions and this is because illusions in dnd can either be really over powered or just never do anything and its unclear in the rules when a monster would investigate an illusion. Using passive to determine if a monster checks means that there are some monsters which are basically resistant to illusions and some which are vulnerable based on their passive investigation. Though illusions will almost always have some use with the monster still requiring an action action still to investigate as opposed to just using passive.
If my player want to find a trap or secret door its basically always an active check.