Right. Sounds like we're on the same page. The invisible and unhidden target can be attacked with disadvantage...if the attacker knows where to attack. That's why in my example I, as DM, would suggest the player take the search action to make a perception check to find out where to attack.
Right. Sounds like we're on the same page. The invisible and unhidden target can be attacked with disadvantage...if the attacker knows where to attack. That's why in my example I, as DM, would suggest the player take the search action to make a perception check to find out where to attack.
Which is functionally the same as an invisible hidden target.
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
Well, the player just doing nothing is either a player who doesn't understand what they can do, or a DM who isn't willing to help them understand. This is how a player who understands her options would do it:
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
But given the premise of this thread, the sequence is as follows.
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right! GM: You can't, you've already used your Action on a perception attempt. Player: —
What I;m saying is, if the character attempting to percieve needs to take an Action to find the hidden creature, then the hidden creature needs to have taken an Action to hide. Invisibility is not "free hiding" (in the sens of a zero Action economy cost) - it is just "unseen".
I would say that having to take the search action is where the similarities end. In my example, even before suggesting the search action, I gave a situationally appropriate approximation of where the invisible creature was. If the creature was also hidden, I would proactively offer no such clues. Also, searching for an invisible and unhidden creature would be done against a DC set by the DM based on the circumstances of the creature, the character, and the environment. Searching for an invisible and hidden creature would be a perception check against the (likely much higher) stealth roll of the invisible hidden creature.
If you don't search, how are you going to find something you can't see? I've already laid out the case for why I feel automatically knowing the exact location of an invisible creature is problematic and unsupported by the rules as written so I'm not going to repeat it. If it's simply a matter that you think people should automatically know the exact location of an invisible and unhidden target, then I am not saying you are wrong but I respectfully disagree and I'm satisfied to leave it at that.
I would say that having to take the search action is where the similarities end. In my example, even before suggesting the search action, I gave a situationally appropriate approximation of where the invisible creature was. If the creature was also hidden, I would proactively offer no such clues. Also, searching for an invisible and unhidden creature would be done against a DC set by the DM based on the circumstances of the creature, the character, and the environment. Searching for an invisible and hidden creature would be a perception check against the (likely much higher) stealth roll of the invisible hidden creature.
So what is a reasonable DC? A stealth roll would give 10+dex on average for most creatures, so a reasonable DC would be in the range of dex to 5+dex.
Does it cost an action to search or do you house rule that it doesn't? If it's an action to search, that's a effectively a full extra round of not getting attacked.
What happens if the creature moves after being located? Is their location still known?
I’m thinking that although our initial premises are quite different, the end results aren’t that different.
1. Premise - the location of an invisible creature is known unless other factors make it unknown. (Hiding, deafened, Silence, other noises too loud, etc.)
2. Premise - the location of an invisible creature is unknown unless there are other factors that make it known. (Visual clues, audiotory clues, smells, invisible creature gives away its present location by attacking, yelling, running into things, carrying a light source, etc)
I've already talked about a rogue's Blindsense ability, but there is also the ranger's 18th level feature Feral Senses.
Feral Senses
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.
Referring to the second paragraph in particular, if everyone knows the location of invisible creatures automatically, then this paragraph provides no distinction whatsoever from anyone else. An 18th level feature is meant to be a big deal. Jeremy Crawford was asked about it and I feel his response is telling with regard to whether effort is required to locate invisible creatures.
Interesting that it says blinded or deafened not blinded and deafened. Doesn’t work with just one sense.
While I start from premise 1, in many cases the location of an invisible creature 30’ away is going to unknown due to many factors. The rogue’s ability would cut right through the static that others couldn’t.
invisible knight in platemail walking of a stone floor 30’ away. No background noise, no other people around. - just about anyone who isn’t deaf has a reasonable idea where he is.
Invisible Stalker 30’ away, windy day - nobody but the rogue is going to know where it is.
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
Well, the player just doing nothing is either a player who doesn't understand what they can do, or a DM who isn't willing to help them understand. This is how a player who understands her options would do it:
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
But given the premise of this thread, the sequence is as follows.
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right! GM: You can't, you've already used your Action on a perception attempt. Player: —
What I;m saying is, if the character attempting to percieve needs to take an Action to find the hidden creature, then the hidden creature needs to have taken an Action to hide. Invisibility is not "free hiding" (in the sens of a zero Action economy cost) - it is just "unseen".
It doesn't follow at all that any perception attempt is an action. The Search action is devoting your attention to finding something. That's very different, very, from simply asking if there's any evidence for where it went. Your example here is like the last one, needlessly handicapping the player. Here's my example, to clarify the distinction:
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: Are you going to actively Search, or make more of a quick check, passive perception? Player: Just a quick check. GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
The player could also have said they wanted to take the Search action and devote more time to finding it. In that case, yes, they used their action. But they'd have A) a better chance to succeed, and B) if they did succeed, a better chance carrying over to their next turn to spot it again, as well as C) the ability with a success to point out the location to others.
Yes, it's realistic for someone to have the choice between a quick scan of the area, well within a couple of seconds, or just asking what it is that the character is sensing at the moment, and a devoted Search.
Here's an important point: a player asking "what do I see/hear/feel/smell/taste" should not at all count in every instance as a Search action. If these were real people, they wouldn't have to be asking, they would know, from moment to moment, what they are sensing. But the player does not know that. So the player should be able to know for free at any time what their character is currently sensing. You are cheating your player if you make that cost an action. It's like you're making them walk around with a bag over their head and thick gloves on, and taking an action to take them off and look around.
Just attempting to perceive is not taking the Search action.
GM: Okay, it's your turn, what are you doing? Player: Does he look like he's getting tired at all? GM: Okay, you take the Search action, and you (roll) notice that yes, he's getting tired. Player: Wait, I wanted to attack. GM: Then you shouldn't have asked if you perceive anything and used your action. Wait until next turn, when you can either attack, or use your senses, but not both.
It doesn't follow at all that any perception attempt is an action. The Search action is devoting your attention to finding something. That's very different, very, from simply asking if there's any evidence for where it went. Your example here is like the last one, needlessly handicapping the player. Here's my example, to clarify the distinction:
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: Are you going to actively Search, or make more of a quick check, passive perception? Player: Just a quick check. GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
The player could also have said they wanted to take the Search action and devote more time to finding it. In that case, yes, they used their action. But they'd have A) a better chance to succeed, and B) if they did succeed, a better chance carrying over to their next turn to spot it again, as well as C) the ability with a success to point out the location to others.
Passive perception should be used when the player is passive, not when the character is just taking a quick look. If you're going to use passive perception in combat, you should do it without asking the player, just tell them what they perceive.
An active check doesn't have a higher chance of success, just a higher cap where it can succeed.
It doesn't follow at all that any perception attempt is an action. The Search action is devoting your attention to finding something. That's very different, very, from simply asking if there's any evidence for where it went. Your example here is like the last one, needlessly handicapping the player. Here's my example, to clarify the distinction:
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: Are you going to actively Search, or make more of a quick check, passive perception? Player: Just a quick check. GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
The player could also have said they wanted to take the Search action and devote more time to finding it. In that case, yes, they used their action. But they'd have A) a better chance to succeed, and B) if they did succeed, a better chance carrying over to their next turn to spot it again, as well as C) the ability with a success to point out the location to others.
Passive perception should be used when the player is passive, not when the character is just taking a quick look. If you're going to use passive perception in combat, you should do it without asking the player, just tell them what they perceive.
An active check doesn't have a higher chance of success, just a higher cap where it can succeed.
With respect, passive checks can be used whenever I want to as the DM, in particular because there is no sharp line between being active and passive. If someone walks into a room and looks around, they are actively looking around. Their head is moving, they are looking at their surroundings on purpose, not by accident. They just aren't focusing on any one thing. If someone takes some time to specifically look for an item, they are actively looking around but taking more time and focusing on one result. And if someone takes a quick glance for evidence of an invisible thing, they are actively looking, but are taking less time and maybe not focusing on just one thing (footprints, breezes, etc). I find that to be a useful way of handling perception, so that's what I should use.
With respect, passive checks can be used whenever I want to as the DM, in particular because there is no sharp line between being active and passive. If someone walks into a room and looks around, they are actively looking around. Their head is moving, they are looking at their surroundings on purpose, not by accident. They just aren't focusing on any one thing. If someone takes some time to specifically look for an item, they are actively looking around but taking more time and focusing on one result. And if someone takes a quick glance for evidence of an invisible thing, they are actively looking, but are taking less time and maybe not focusing on just one thing (footprints, breezes, etc). I find that to be a useful way of handling perception, so that's what I should use.
There is no distinction whatsoever for the character between an active and passive check, the distinction is entirely whether the player is an active or passive participant in the check.
With respect, passive checks can be used whenever I want to as the DM, in particular because there is no sharp line between being active and passive. If someone walks into a room and looks around, they are actively looking around. Their head is moving, they are looking at their surroundings on purpose, not by accident. They just aren't focusing on any one thing. If someone takes some time to specifically look for an item, they are actively looking around but taking more time and focusing on one result. And if someone takes a quick glance for evidence of an invisible thing, they are actively looking, but are taking less time and maybe not focusing on just one thing (footprints, breezes, etc). I find that to be a useful way of handling perception, so that's what I should use.
There is no distinction whatsoever for the character between an active and passive check, the distinction is entirely whether the player is an active or passive participant in the check.
That doesn't make sense. The character's actions are part of what determines whether the player becomes an active participant or not.
If what the character does isn't part of this determination, then the DM can just make everything a passive check by simply doing all the rolling themselves. Just by fiat. "I roll to attack." "No, this a passive attack, just because I'm rolling for you."
The character's actions play a big role in making the determination of whether the player or the DM should be doing the rolling. And plays a roll in determining how hard the roll is to make.
There is no distinction whatsoever for the character between an active and passive check, the distinction is entirely whether the player is an active or passive participant in the check.
That doesn't make sense. The character's actions are part of what determines whether the player becomes an active participant or not.
If what the character does isn't part of this determination, then the DM can just make everything a passive check by simply doing all the rolling themselves. Just by fiat. "I roll to attack." "No, this a passive attack, just because I'm rolling for you."
The character's actions play a big role in making the determination of whether the player or the DM should be doing the rolling. And plays a roll in determining how hard the roll is to make.
The DM can make everything a passive roll, but then it's not as fun. The DM can also make everything an active roll, but rolling for every 5ft of a dungeon is also not fun. As far as the character is concerned, there's no way to tell if something would be an active or passive roll. There are going to be active rolls where the character is passive and just happens to notice something, there will also be passive rolls where the character is methodically searching an area.
There is no distinction whatsoever for the character between an active and passive check, the distinction is entirely whether the player is an active or passive participant in the check.
That doesn't make sense. The character's actions are part of what determines whether the player becomes an active participant or not.
If what the character does isn't part of this determination, then the DM can just make everything a passive check by simply doing all the rolling themselves. Just by fiat. "I roll to attack." "No, this a passive attack, just because I'm rolling for you."
The character's actions play a big role in making the determination of whether the player or the DM should be doing the rolling. And plays a roll in determining how hard the roll is to make.
The DM can make everything a passive roll, but then it's not as fun. The DM can also make everything an active roll, but rolling for every 5ft of a dungeon is also not fun. As far as the character is concerned, there's no way to tell if something would be an active or passive roll. There are going to be active rolls where the character is passive and just happens to notice something, there will also be passive rolls where the character is methodically searching an area.
But the player and thereby character does play a big role in determining what the DM will decide. If the party walks into a room, and Player A says nothing in particular, as opposed to Player B who asks "I know we're looking for a hidden room, I'm going to look for evidence." Player A is doing nothing active, which would help (but not be the only factor) determine what sort of roll would be made...including whether it's an active check or a passive check.
But the player and thereby character does play a big role in determining what the DM will decide. If the party walks into a room, and Player A says nothing in particular, as opposed to Player B who asks "I know we're looking for a hidden room, I'm going to look for evidence." Player A is doing nothing active, which would help (but not be the only factor) determine what sort of roll would be made...including whether it's an active check or a passive check.
So in your game does B get a passive or active check? Does A?
But the player and thereby character does play a big role in determining what the DM will decide. If the party walks into a room, and Player A says nothing in particular, as opposed to Player B who asks "I know we're looking for a hidden room, I'm going to look for evidence." Player A is doing nothing active, which would help (but not be the only factor) determine what sort of roll would be made...including whether it's an active check or a passive check.
So in your game does B get a passive or active check? Does A?
There are other factors than just what the player/character does, but it's a big one. Saying nothing else about that situation, yes, B would be in effect taking the Search action (even though it's out of combat), and would make a Perception/Investigation roll. Player A would not get that, but depending on what's in the room, might get a passive roll to notice the 'Thing That Could Be Noticed'.
There are other factors than just what the player/character does, but it's a big one. Saying nothing else about that situation, yes, B would be in effect taking the Search action (even though it's out of combat), and would make a Perception/Investigation roll. Player A would not get that, but depending on what's in the room, might get a passive roll to notice the 'Thing That Could Be Noticed'.
In my game both would get the active perception roll against a higher DC to see if they just happened to notice something, then B would get their passive investigation against a lower DC for a thorough search.
There are other factors than just what the player/character does, but it's a big one. Saying nothing else about that situation, yes, B would be in effect taking the Search action (even though it's out of combat), and would make a Perception/Investigation roll. Player A would not get that, but depending on what's in the room, might get a passive roll to notice the 'Thing That Could Be Noticed'.
In my game both would get the active perception roll against a higher DC to see if they just happened to notice something, then B would get their passive investigation against a lower DC for a thorough search.
You'd give the player an active roll to see if they just happen to notice anything when they aren't trying, and a passive role when they are specifically searching? That seems like the opposite way to play it.
I mean, technically, PHB wants Passive 'checks' to not even involve die rolling. So if either of us use dice for a 'passive' check (I often but not always do), we're off-RAW there already :) But the description of Passive Perception in the PHB reads "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." So not actively searching, to me, is the calling card of a Passive check. Actively searching involves a normal skill roll.
You'd give the player an active roll to see if they just happen to notice anything when they aren't trying, and a passive role when they are specifically searching? That seems like the opposite way to play it.
I mean, technically, PHB wants Passive 'checks' to not even involve die rolling. So if either of us use dice for a 'passive' check (I often but not always do), we're off-RAW there already :) But the description of Passive Perception in the PHB reads "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." So not actively searching, to me, is the calling card of a Passive check. Actively searching involves a normal skill roll.
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
I use passive checks 1) when the player would have to make multiple rolls, such as when searching an area 2) when I don't want the player to know they're being checked against, such as when a creature is hiding from them 3) during combat if someone takes the hide action
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right. Sounds like we're on the same page. The invisible and unhidden target can be attacked with disadvantage...if the attacker knows where to attack. That's why in my example I, as DM, would suggest the player take the search action to make a perception check to find out where to attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Which is functionally the same as an invisible hidden target.
But given the premise of this thread, the sequence is as follows.
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack.
Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints?
GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right.
Player: I swing my sword to my right!
GM: You can't, you've already used your Action on a perception attempt.
Player: —
What I;m saying is, if the character attempting to percieve needs to take an Action to find the hidden creature, then the hidden creature needs to have taken an Action to hide. Invisibility is not "free hiding" (in the sens of a zero Action economy cost) - it is just "unseen".
I would say that having to take the search action is where the similarities end. In my example, even before suggesting the search action, I gave a situationally appropriate approximation of where the invisible creature was. If the creature was also hidden, I would proactively offer no such clues. Also, searching for an invisible and unhidden creature would be done against a DC set by the DM based on the circumstances of the creature, the character, and the environment. Searching for an invisible and hidden creature would be a perception check against the (likely much higher) stealth roll of the invisible hidden creature.
If you don't search, how are you going to find something you can't see? I've already laid out the case for why I feel automatically knowing the exact location of an invisible creature is problematic and unsupported by the rules as written so I'm not going to repeat it. If it's simply a matter that you think people should automatically know the exact location of an invisible and unhidden target, then I am not saying you are wrong but I respectfully disagree and I'm satisfied to leave it at that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So what is a reasonable DC? A stealth roll would give 10+dex on average for most creatures, so a reasonable DC would be in the range of dex to 5+dex.
Does it cost an action to search or do you house rule that it doesn't? If it's an action to search, that's a effectively a full extra round of not getting attacked.
What happens if the creature moves after being located? Is their location still known?
I’m thinking that although our initial premises are quite different, the end results aren’t that different.
1. Premise - the location of an invisible creature is known unless other factors make it unknown. (Hiding, deafened, Silence, other noises too loud, etc.)
2. Premise - the location of an invisible creature is unknown unless there are other factors that make it known. (Visual clues, audiotory clues, smells, invisible creature gives away its present location by attacking, yelling, running into things, carrying a light source, etc)
Is this good summary of the discussion?
I've already talked about a rogue's Blindsense ability, but there is also the ranger's 18th level feature Feral Senses.
Referring to the second paragraph in particular, if everyone knows the location of invisible creatures automatically, then this paragraph provides no distinction whatsoever from anyone else. An 18th level feature is meant to be a big deal. Jeremy Crawford was asked about it and I feel his response is telling with regard to whether effort is required to locate invisible creatures.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Interesting that it says blinded or deafened not blinded and deafened. Doesn’t work with just one sense.
While I start from premise 1, in many cases the location of an invisible creature 30’ away is going to unknown due to many factors. The rogue’s ability would cut right through the static that others couldn’t.
invisible knight in platemail walking of a stone floor 30’ away. No background noise, no other people around. - just about anyone who isn’t deaf has a reasonable idea where he is.
Invisible Stalker 30’ away, windy day - nobody but the rogue is going to know where it is.
It doesn't follow at all that any perception attempt is an action. The Search action is devoting your attention to finding something. That's very different, very, from simply asking if there's any evidence for where it went. Your example here is like the last one, needlessly handicapping the player. Here's my example, to clarify the distinction:
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack.
Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints?
GM: Are you going to actively Search, or make more of a quick check, passive perception?
Player: Just a quick check.
GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right.
Player: I swing my sword to my right!
The player could also have said they wanted to take the Search action and devote more time to finding it. In that case, yes, they used their action. But they'd have A) a better chance to succeed, and B) if they did succeed, a better chance carrying over to their next turn to spot it again, as well as C) the ability with a success to point out the location to others.
Yes, it's realistic for someone to have the choice between a quick scan of the area, well within a couple of seconds, or just asking what it is that the character is sensing at the moment, and a devoted Search.
Here's an important point: a player asking "what do I see/hear/feel/smell/taste" should not at all count in every instance as a Search action. If these were real people, they wouldn't have to be asking, they would know, from moment to moment, what they are sensing. But the player does not know that. So the player should be able to know for free at any time what their character is currently sensing. You are cheating your player if you make that cost an action. It's like you're making them walk around with a bag over their head and thick gloves on, and taking an action to take them off and look around.
Just attempting to perceive is not taking the Search action.
GM: Okay, it's your turn, what are you doing?
Player: Does he look like he's getting tired at all?
GM: Okay, you take the Search action, and you (roll) notice that yes, he's getting tired.
Player: Wait, I wanted to attack.
GM: Then you shouldn't have asked if you perceive anything and used your action. Wait until next turn, when you can either attack, or use your senses, but not both.
That's exactly the wrong way to run perception.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Passive perception should be used when the player is passive, not when the character is just taking a quick look. If you're going to use passive perception in combat, you should do it without asking the player, just tell them what they perceive.
An active check doesn't have a higher chance of success, just a higher cap where it can succeed.
With respect, passive checks can be used whenever I want to as the DM, in particular because there is no sharp line between being active and passive. If someone walks into a room and looks around, they are actively looking around. Their head is moving, they are looking at their surroundings on purpose, not by accident. They just aren't focusing on any one thing. If someone takes some time to specifically look for an item, they are actively looking around but taking more time and focusing on one result. And if someone takes a quick glance for evidence of an invisible thing, they are actively looking, but are taking less time and maybe not focusing on just one thing (footprints, breezes, etc). I find that to be a useful way of handling perception, so that's what I should use.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
There is no distinction whatsoever for the character between an active and passive check, the distinction is entirely whether the player is an active or passive participant in the check.
That doesn't make sense. The character's actions are part of what determines whether the player becomes an active participant or not.
If what the character does isn't part of this determination, then the DM can just make everything a passive check by simply doing all the rolling themselves. Just by fiat. "I roll to attack." "No, this a passive attack, just because I'm rolling for you."
The character's actions play a big role in making the determination of whether the player or the DM should be doing the rolling. And plays a roll in determining how hard the roll is to make.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The DM can make everything a passive roll, but then it's not as fun. The DM can also make everything an active roll, but rolling for every 5ft of a dungeon is also not fun. As far as the character is concerned, there's no way to tell if something would be an active or passive roll. There are going to be active rolls where the character is passive and just happens to notice something, there will also be passive rolls where the character is methodically searching an area.
But the player and thereby character does play a big role in determining what the DM will decide. If the party walks into a room, and Player A says nothing in particular, as opposed to Player B who asks "I know we're looking for a hidden room, I'm going to look for evidence." Player A is doing nothing active, which would help (but not be the only factor) determine what sort of roll would be made...including whether it's an active check or a passive check.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
So in your game does B get a passive or active check? Does A?
There are other factors than just what the player/character does, but it's a big one. Saying nothing else about that situation, yes, B would be in effect taking the Search action (even though it's out of combat), and would make a Perception/Investigation roll. Player A would not get that, but depending on what's in the room, might get a passive roll to notice the 'Thing That Could Be Noticed'.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
In my game both would get the active perception roll against a higher DC to see if they just happened to notice something, then B would get their passive investigation against a lower DC for a thorough search.
You'd give the player an active roll to see if they just happen to notice anything when they aren't trying, and a passive role when they are specifically searching? That seems like the opposite way to play it.
I mean, technically, PHB wants Passive 'checks' to not even involve die rolling. So if either of us use dice for a 'passive' check (I often but not always do), we're off-RAW there already :) But the description of Passive Perception in the PHB reads "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." So not actively searching, to me, is the calling card of a Passive check. Actively searching involves a normal skill roll.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I use passive checks 1) when the player would have to make multiple rolls, such as when searching an area 2) when I don't want the player to know they're being checked against, such as when a creature is hiding from them 3) during combat if someone takes the hide action