So, I am thinking about taking the Observant Feat once I hit my next ASI level, if I do, it will give me a passive perception of 23 and passive investigation of 20.
Haven't talked to my DM yet, but wanted to get a general consensus, should my character have to even role for any perception or investigation check if it isn't higher than my passive?
Jeremy Crawford talks for nearly 40 minutes about the RAI for stealth and hiding, in and out of combat. Its quite informative and has a number of insights that many players and DMs might find useful.
Some stand-out points:
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
First, the wording on your poll should be adjusted. Optuon 1 is fine, however option 2 should be “Active can be lower than passive.”
Now on to your question. I was going to point you to that episode where Crawford discusses stealth and passive perception. Per Jeremy, your passive perception is a floor that you can’t go below. It’s always on. If something has a DC that is below your passive, you should see it and not have to roll.
Bear in mind, if it were something like a trap, you would only see it - you still have to disarm or navigate around it.
Also, dim light will give you -5 passive (disadvantage). This is particularly important with darkvision in a dark area - instead of being completely blind, you have disadvantage so -5.
Passive Invesitgation would technically work the same way, but not everyone uses that.
The exception to this is when you’re in marching order with the party, typically in a dungeon or out in the wild. You have to declare you’re looking out and you have to be actively focusing on that. If you’re doing something else (they give a number of examples, including navigating), then your passive isn’t factored in.
All this said, your DM has the final call. Talk with your them first to see how they will rule passive perception. This is one of those touchy subjects that some DMs feel very strongly about, so it’s important to get this info up front before you commit.
RAW is pretty clear on this, but in my experience every DM rules this differently (and most commonly not by RAW). Some of them are more extreme than others (passive is only used for Stealth), some are more situational (when you're in an intense, timed situation your passive doesn't matter), but I've had very few DMs who were fully RAW/RAI (passive is the floor for perception).
My recommendation would be to ask your DM how they rule it, since that would be the most significant answer for your case, as you plan to use this for your character. If your DM rules in a way that makes Observant hardly useful, it may be best to pick an alternative feature.
So following this logic, wouldn't it mean the same thing for every skill check? My strength is 15, I should be able to beat any athletics check for 15, but roll in case I can beat it? The rule book doesn't talk at all about the floor, but does say that passive perception can be used to replace frequent/repeating rolls or for things where you are not actively looking (hence passive). But it does talk about rolling for perception later.
"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."
To me it makes sense to not have a floor. We've all been looking for something in real life, like something in the fridge and have been looking right at it, but don't see it. I think the roll brings some of that back in. If you always see everything, then it loses that randomness that is present in life.
I disagree with Jeremy Crawford’s comments in that video. That is not how it is written in the rules and Wizards has not taken the opportunity to update the rules either as an errata or in XGE. It seems that DMs rule it both ways and I can see the logic for both viewpoints. However I think that using the passive score as a floor is the less desirable option as it can somewhat break the game if a player takes the feat on top of expertise and a high base score. So I make players roll for any active checks. (Which my Rogue hates)
The reason I believe it makes the game worse is that a player with a passive perception of 23, as in your example, will automatically spot almost everything taking all the surprises out of the game. Many DMs will adjust the DCs upward to compensate for this which makes it near impossible for other characters to spot anything.
Surprise, uncertainty and working to overcome obstacles is a large part of what makes the game fun. A 23 always on perception takes away a lot of the fun. It does help a player win the game. So I guess it is a destination / journey decision.
I disagree with Jeremy Crawford’s comments in that video. That is not how it is written in the rules...
The reason I believe it makes the game worse is that a player with a passive perception of 23, as in your example, will automatically spot almost everything taking all the surprises out of the game. Many DMs will adjust the DCs upward to compensate...
Surprise, uncertainty and working to overcome obstacles is a large part of what makes the game fun. A 23 always on perception takes away a lot of the fun. It does help a player win the game. So I guess it is a destination / journey decision.
You can disagree, but he is speaking about Rai vs Raw, he is describing how it is supposed to work.
Yes, with 23 you would. But that is the way I am designing the character. To get that I had to invsest in Wisdom, use one of my Expertise options, and take a feat. So I am investing a lot to get that 23. As to the DC, Your DC should be based on difficulty, arbitrarily setting a number higher because you know a player would otherwise notice it is disingenuous.
Surprise and uncertainty aren’t eliminated, seeing a trap and successfully disarming or avoiding it isn’t a guarantee, one party member not being surprised by an Ambush doesn’t mean automatic success in combat, so I disagree that having a high perception takes away, I think it takes away very little.
> As to the DC, Your DC should be based on difficulty, arbitrarily setting a number higher because you know a player would otherwise notice it is disingenuous.
That is one of my points. From what I have observed that is exactly what DMs tend to do. Set the DC higher to compensate. And I agree it is not an honest way to compensate. But it does tend to happen. I do understand that you give up a lot to gain so much in one area. But I think it is a mistake that the rules let that happen. It goes against the concept of bounded accuracy.
As for RAW vs RAI, if that is what was actually intended then why hasn’t it been officially clarified. ie, in the written rules?
I am happy to be in the minority on this, but just wanted to share my opinion.
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
I so hate this logic. Like, really, really, really hate it. I hate it even more than the logic that made Inspiration a core mechanic. I hate it so much that when I DM, I make a very big fuss about it so that players are fully aware that I do not and will not ever use the rules on passive perception like this. It is, IMO, one of the very worst traditions to have evolved in D&D in the last twenty years. The only thing worse than it, is Eberron.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
> As to the DC, Your DC should be based on difficulty, arbitrarily setting a number higher because you know a player would otherwise notice it is disingenuous.
That is one of my points. From what I have observed that is exactly what DMs tend to do. Set the DC higher to compensate. And I agree it is not an honest way to compensate. But it does tend to happen. I do understand that you give up a lot to gain so much in one area. But I think it is a mistake that the rules let that happen. It goes against the concept of bounded accuracy.
As for RAW vs RAI, if that is what was actually intended then why hasn’t it been officially clarified. ie, in the written rules?
I am happy to be in the minority on this, but just wanted to share my opinion.
Opions and discussion is why I created the thread. Happy to have yours.
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
I so hate this logic. Like, really, really, really hate it. I hate it even more than the logic that made Inspiration a core mechanic. I hate it so much that when I DM, I make a very big fuss about it so that players are fully aware that I do not and will not ever use the rules on passive perception like this. It is, IMO, one of the very worst traditions to have evolved in D&D in the last twenty years. The only thing worse than it, is Eberron.
Ok, but tell us how you really feel? Lol, no really though, can you elaborate on the why? What about this don’t you like? It makes complete sense.
Think about it this way. I am looking for a specific pen in a cluttered desk drawer. My passive perception is really high. I roll a 3. I am looking all around, everything that I am not staring directly at with my roll of 3 automatically falls into my peripheral view, aka, my passive perception. With it being really high, I am going to spot the pen, even though I am not looking directly at it because my passive recognition is that good.
I think the thing that gets most people is that they don’t use the recommended difficulty scores,
Task Difficulty
DC
Very easy
5
Easy
10
Medium
15
Hard
20
Very hard
25
Nearly impossible
30
Any character, even dumping Wisdom to an 8, has a 9 at level 1. So anyone notices the very eas stuff. If you invest a skill in Perception, that gets you an 11. Now you notice the very easy and easy stuff. As they level up, they get better, but slowly. It would take most characters either the Observant feat (an investement) or to hit level 17 to be able to notice things with Medium difficulty.
Really the only characters that can get really highin the aability is those that use expertise, the feat, or a combination of.
Additionally as stated, light and other conditions change these values, an easy trap in the dark becomes medium, etc...
I get the intent of Passive skills, but I don't really enjoy them when used in that way, either as a DM or as a player.
I have a character that I am working on and am excited to play who is going to be taking this very concept to extremes. Observant feat, expertise, high wisdom, reliable talent, etc. I factored it out that I'd eventually get a 30 in both Passive Perception and Investigation, and 25 in Passive Insight. Taking rules as intended, I never, ever need to roll those skills. I succeed in all cases, with the rare exception of a nearly impossible Insight check. As a player, I would ask my DM to not allow that, and force me to roll each time. That character is no more trained at observation than some characters are trained at the art of the blade, and yet those come with a 5% automatic fail rate. Same circumstances too, an observant character still has an opponent attempting to thwart his observations, whether it's someone trying to hide their true demeanor or just trying to hide, whether themselves or something else.
That chance of failure, that introduction of something random, adds a huge amount of flavor and enjoyment that Passives as intended would remove. That character of mine is not perfect, and never will be. Attaining perfection is boring, but seeking it is interesting. That requires imperfection, no matter how slight.
That doesn't mean I don't believe Passives don't have a place in my games, as I do incorporate them into my DMing style, but I do so in a way that makes the most logical sense to me, and that is to treat Passives as passive. Passives don't turn people into walking searchlights, but they inform the DM's narration when the players are not actively seeking nor distracted. If the character is performing any kind of activity that requires some kind of attention, and is not actively using these skills, then the Passive comes into play. If the character is distracted, then the Passives are ignored. If the character is actively utilizing the skills, then the roll represents the final result. Additionally, I separate what Passives are capable of seeing from what active skills can. Perceiving passively would only net a superficial perception. A spidey-sense tingling of something being not quite right that prompts a closer look, with active perception.
This method has worked well for me so far, though I'd be remiss to not add a disclaimer. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and what works with my group. Mileage may vary.
The entire concept of passive perception is the problem, not just Jeremy's interpretation of it. And I'm not going to elaborate because what's the point? This has been argued to death in a thousand other places and I get nothing out of the results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
The passive part can be a bit weird, especially when you consider if you handle any organisation of stuff (if working in a warehouse for example) you can know exactly where something should be and yet still miss seeing it (what is a very easy task) even if it is in plain sight. As normal world people we likely don't have the honed perception of adventurers with potential threats around most corners, but we still can miss what is right in front of our faces. This is what the floor on perception avoids especially given passive is considered an 'average roll' plus skill and not a minimum roll (thus technically still a conscious activity). Even if one is to use a minimum roll having that +5 from observant feat is a good boon, you aren't going to miss any thing that is very easy to notice, and eventually not stuff that is easy to notice either (per RAW a 1 skill roll isn't an auto fail).
Likewise given that the observant feat doesn't really do much for a rolled perception check (which seems weird that an observant individual isn't any better than anyone else if they are 'actively' looking) if it isn't using as a floor value seems to essentially make the feat a +5 to the minimum roll.
It does make me wonder if Advantage/Disadvantage was originally meant to stack with each other (thus one advantage and one disadvantage negating each other, with further ones still applying) and Observant initially gave advantage to perception/investigation (thus essentially increasing the minimum result by +5, as it does for the passive value), but was simpler to just go with one or the other.
Personally for me, as a DM I tend to use passive as a way to give a vague hint that something is not quite typical for the situation (and maybe they should take the time to search the area a bit better). Like for a trap a the character may notice an old blood stain or bones, a feeling of being watched if they are being stalked by a stealthy entity or maybe a draft or odd marking for that secret door.
I really like your observation Cloudseeker42, but my first thought is that as the DM, how do you track this? You're already managing so much information. They are walking into a cave and you have to determine if the players stealthy; and the three monsters you have waiting, are they noisy; and the traps are set but do the players see them? Adding in all these modifiers for perceptions seems like a bit of a task. Do you have the players self-regulate or are you just a heck of a lot smarter than me (and that is a probably)? Or am I making a simple thing overly complex?
I really like your observation Cloudseeker42, but my first thought is that as the DM, how do you track this? You're already managing so much information. They are walking into a cave and you have to determine if the players stealthy; and the three monsters you have waiting, are they noisy; and the traps are set but do the players see them? Adding in all these modifiers for perceptions seems like a bit of a task. Do you have the players self-regulate or are you just a heck of a lot smarter than me (and that is a probably)? Or am I making a simple thing overly complex?
I use the same modifiers as Cloudseeker. I have a little print-out attached to my DM screen with a clip which has passive scores for each character. Done in Google Sheets, with different headers for different situations. Here's what it looks like (though none of these characters have darkvision)
So, I am thinking about taking the Observant Feat once I hit my next ASI level, if I do, it will give me a passive perception of 23 and passive investigation of 20.
Haven't talked to my DM yet, but wanted to get a general consensus, should my character have to even role for any perception or investigation check if it isn't higher than my passive?
Can you simply take your passive as your check?
I did find this on a google search...
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
Jeremy Crawford talks for nearly 40 minutes about the RAI for stealth and hiding, in and out of combat. Its quite informative and has a number of insights that many players and DMs might find useful.
Some stand-out points:
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
First, the wording on your poll should be adjusted. Optuon 1 is fine, however option 2 should be “Active can be lower than passive.”
Now on to your question. I was going to point you to that episode where Crawford discusses stealth and passive perception. Per Jeremy, your passive perception is a floor that you can’t go below. It’s always on. If something has a DC that is below your passive, you should see it and not have to roll.
Bear in mind, if it were something like a trap, you would only see it - you still have to disarm or navigate around it.
Also, dim light will give you -5 passive (disadvantage). This is particularly important with darkvision in a dark area - instead of being completely blind, you have disadvantage so -5.
Passive Invesitgation would technically work the same way, but not everyone uses that.
The exception to this is when you’re in marching order with the party, typically in a dungeon or out in the wild. You have to declare you’re looking out and you have to be actively focusing on that. If you’re doing something else (they give a number of examples, including navigating), then your passive isn’t factored in.
All this said, your DM has the final call. Talk with your them first to see how they will rule passive perception. This is one of those touchy subjects that some DMs feel very strongly about, so it’s important to get this info up front before you commit.
RAW is pretty clear on this, but in my experience every DM rules this differently (and most commonly not by RAW). Some of them are more extreme than others (passive is only used for Stealth), some are more situational (when you're in an intense, timed situation your passive doesn't matter), but I've had very few DMs who were fully RAW/RAI (passive is the floor for perception).
My recommendation would be to ask your DM how they rule it, since that would be the most significant answer for your case, as you plan to use this for your character. If your DM rules in a way that makes Observant hardly useful, it may be best to pick an alternative feature.
So following this logic, wouldn't it mean the same thing for every skill check? My strength is 15, I should be able to beat any athletics check for 15, but roll in case I can beat it? The rule book doesn't talk at all about the floor, but does say that passive perception can be used to replace frequent/repeating rolls or for things where you are not actively looking (hence passive). But it does talk about rolling for perception later.
"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."
To me it makes sense to not have a floor. We've all been looking for something in real life, like something in the fridge and have been looking right at it, but don't see it. I think the roll brings some of that back in. If you always see everything, then it loses that randomness that is present in life.
I disagree with Jeremy Crawford’s comments in that video. That is not how it is written in the rules and Wizards has not taken the opportunity to update the rules either as an errata or in XGE. It seems that DMs rule it both ways and I can see the logic for both viewpoints. However I think that using the passive score as a floor is the less desirable option as it can somewhat break the game if a player takes the feat on top of expertise and a high base score. So I make players roll for any active checks. (Which my Rogue hates)
The reason I believe it makes the game worse is that a player with a passive perception of 23, as in your example, will automatically spot almost everything taking all the surprises out of the game. Many DMs will adjust the DCs upward to compensate for this which makes it near impossible for other characters to spot anything.
Surprise, uncertainty and working to overcome obstacles is a large part of what makes the game fun. A 23 always on perception takes away a lot of the fun. It does help a player win the game. So I guess it is a destination / journey decision.
You can disagree, but he is speaking about Rai vs Raw, he is describing how it is supposed to work.
Yes, with 23 you would. But that is the way I am designing the character. To get that I had to invsest in Wisdom, use one of my Expertise options, and take a feat. So I am investing a lot to get that 23. As to the DC, Your DC should be based on difficulty, arbitrarily setting a number higher because you know a player would otherwise notice it is disingenuous.
Surprise and uncertainty aren’t eliminated, seeing a trap and successfully disarming or avoiding it isn’t a guarantee, one party member not being surprised by an Ambush doesn’t mean automatic success in combat, so I disagree that having a high perception takes away, I think it takes away very little.
> As to the DC, Your DC should be based on difficulty, arbitrarily setting a number higher because you know a player would otherwise notice it is disingenuous.
That is one of my points. From what I have observed that is exactly what DMs tend to do. Set the DC higher to compensate. And I agree it is not an honest way to compensate. But it does tend to happen. I do understand that you give up a lot to gain so much in one area. But I think it is a mistake that the rules let that happen. It goes against the concept of bounded accuracy.
As for RAW vs RAI, if that is what was actually intended then why hasn’t it been officially clarified. ie, in the written rules?
I am happy to be in the minority on this, but just wanted to share my opinion.
I so hate this logic. Like, really, really, really hate it. I hate it even more than the logic that made Inspiration a core mechanic. I hate it so much that when I DM, I make a very big fuss about it so that players are fully aware that I do not and will not ever use the rules on passive perception like this. It is, IMO, one of the very worst traditions to have evolved in D&D in the last twenty years. The only thing worse than it, is Eberron.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Opions and discussion is why I created the thread. Happy to have yours.
Ok, but tell us how you really feel? Lol, no really though, can you elaborate on the why? What about this don’t you like? It makes complete sense.
Think about it this way. I am looking for a specific pen in a cluttered desk drawer. My passive perception is really high. I roll a 3. I am looking all around, everything that I am not staring directly at with my roll of 3 automatically falls into my peripheral view, aka, my passive perception. With it being really high, I am going to spot the pen, even though I am not looking directly at it because my passive recognition is that good.
I think the thing that gets most people is that they don’t use the recommended difficulty scores,
Any character, even dumping Wisdom to an 8, has a 9 at level 1. So anyone notices the very eas stuff. If you invest a skill in Perception, that gets you an 11. Now you notice the very easy and easy stuff. As they level up, they get better, but slowly. It would take most characters either the Observant feat (an investement) or to hit level 17 to be able to notice things with Medium difficulty.
Really the only characters that can get really highin the aability is those that use expertise, the feat, or a combination of.
Additionally as stated, light and other conditions change these values, an easy trap in the dark becomes medium, etc...
I get the intent of Passive skills, but I don't really enjoy them when used in that way, either as a DM or as a player.
I have a character that I am working on and am excited to play who is going to be taking this very concept to extremes. Observant feat, expertise, high wisdom, reliable talent, etc. I factored it out that I'd eventually get a 30 in both Passive Perception and Investigation, and 25 in Passive Insight. Taking rules as intended, I never, ever need to roll those skills. I succeed in all cases, with the rare exception of a nearly impossible Insight check. As a player, I would ask my DM to not allow that, and force me to roll each time. That character is no more trained at observation than some characters are trained at the art of the blade, and yet those come with a 5% automatic fail rate. Same circumstances too, an observant character still has an opponent attempting to thwart his observations, whether it's someone trying to hide their true demeanor or just trying to hide, whether themselves or something else.
That chance of failure, that introduction of something random, adds a huge amount of flavor and enjoyment that Passives as intended would remove. That character of mine is not perfect, and never will be. Attaining perfection is boring, but seeking it is interesting. That requires imperfection, no matter how slight.
That doesn't mean I don't believe Passives don't have a place in my games, as I do incorporate them into my DMing style, but I do so in a way that makes the most logical sense to me, and that is to treat Passives as passive. Passives don't turn people into walking searchlights, but they inform the DM's narration when the players are not actively seeking nor distracted. If the character is performing any kind of activity that requires some kind of attention, and is not actively using these skills, then the Passive comes into play. If the character is distracted, then the Passives are ignored. If the character is actively utilizing the skills, then the roll represents the final result. Additionally, I separate what Passives are capable of seeing from what active skills can. Perceiving passively would only net a superficial perception. A spidey-sense tingling of something being not quite right that prompts a closer look, with active perception.
This method has worked well for me so far, though I'd be remiss to not add a disclaimer. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and what works with my group. Mileage may vary.
The entire concept of passive perception is the problem, not just Jeremy's interpretation of it. And I'm not going to elaborate because what's the point? This has been argued to death in a thousand other places and I get nothing out of the results.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
The passive part can be a bit weird, especially when you consider if you handle any organisation of stuff (if working in a warehouse for example) you can know exactly where something should be and yet still miss seeing it (what is a very easy task) even if it is in plain sight. As normal world people we likely don't have the honed perception of adventurers with potential threats around most corners, but we still can miss what is right in front of our faces.
This is what the floor on perception avoids especially given passive is considered an 'average roll' plus skill and not a minimum roll (thus technically still a conscious activity). Even if one is to use a minimum roll having that +5 from observant feat is a good boon, you aren't going to miss any thing that is very easy to notice, and eventually not stuff that is easy to notice either (per RAW a 1 skill roll isn't an auto fail).
Likewise given that the observant feat doesn't really do much for a rolled perception check (which seems weird that an observant individual isn't any better than anyone else if they are 'actively' looking) if it isn't using as a floor value seems to essentially make the feat a +5 to the minimum roll.
It does make me wonder if Advantage/Disadvantage was originally meant to stack with each other (thus one advantage and one disadvantage negating each other, with further ones still applying) and Observant initially gave advantage to perception/investigation (thus essentially increasing the minimum result by +5, as it does for the passive value), but was simpler to just go with one or the other.
Personally for me, as a DM I tend to use passive as a way to give a vague hint that something is not quite typical for the situation (and maybe they should take the time to search the area a bit better). Like for a trap a the character may notice an old blood stain or bones, a feeling of being watched if they are being stalked by a stealthy entity or maybe a draft or odd marking for that secret door.
- Loswaith
I really like your observation Cloudseeker42, but my first thought is that as the DM, how do you track this? You're already managing so much information. They are walking into a cave and you have to determine if the players stealthy; and the three monsters you have waiting, are they noisy; and the traps are set but do the players see them? Adding in all these modifiers for perceptions seems like a bit of a task. Do you have the players self-regulate or are you just a heck of a lot smarter than me (and that is a probably)? Or am I making a simple thing overly complex?
I use the same modifiers as Cloudseeker. I have a little print-out attached to my DM screen with a clip which has passive scores for each character. Done in Google Sheets, with different headers for different situations. Here's what it looks like (though none of these characters have darkvision)
@MellieDM, I really like the chart. Thanks for the idea! @Cloudseeker42, thanks!