Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Compare and contrast:
Scenario 1:
DM: you see a strange creature before you <describes>
Wizard: do i know what this is?
DM: Roll an Arcana(intelligence( check.
Wizard: (rolls die, looks at sheet) 27?
DM: you have read about this creature in your magical studies. It is a MindFlayer.
Wizard: AAAAAAHHH
Scenario 2:
DM: An arrow flashes out of the woods and hits you in the shoulder for 23 piercing damage.
Fighter: gah! Do i see who shot me?
Dm: (checks notes: npc is assassin with skulker feat) No.
Fighter: but can i look for them?
Dm: its not your turn. And its stealth check already beat your passive perception to hide in the first place.
Fighter: but can i like, glance about as a reaction?
Dm. No. (Looks at initiative.) Ranger, youre up!
Ranger: i spend my action looking for where the arrow came from.
Dm: roll perception
Ranger..... 22?
Dm. Thats enough. You spot a humanoid wearing a ghilli suit about 50 ft up the hill.
Ranger: bonus action, Hunters Mark. And i point at them and shout to everyone to let them know.
Dm: With the rangers perception check beating thr assassins stealth, the assassin is now visible to the party. Rangers passive perception is 22 until start of their next turn. (Checks map) you all see half a dozen othrr humanoids all near the assassin. Wizard, youre up.
Wizard: fireball.
In scenario 1, i will ask for skill checks (rolls) that take zero actions for a player to roll to see if they already know some information from previous sources. Like during their arcane studies did they learn about mind flayers.
In scenario2, there is no previous information to know where the assassin is hiding. Someone has to search.
You could use passive perception here, but for that id probably do a -5 penalty since having passive perception equal average active perception is dumb.
Fair enough. That doesn't usually happen though.
Perhaps you could quote some rules that lead you to such conclusions? Because this is absolutely incorrect. Passive Perception and the active Perception check that results from a Search action are both Wisdom (Perception) checks. They use the same skill and are used for the same purposes. They are just used in different scenarios, and the outcome is determined with different mechanics.
Let's list again what the rules actually say next to each other and spot the differences:
Search:
Perception (skill, in general, active or passive):
Passive Perception:
The only differences with Passive Perception is that an action is not required and the result of the check cannot reach as high as an active check that results from a Search action. Otherwise, it's the same skill that is used for the same purposes.
In this example, what should happen is that the DM checks Passive Perception to see if a character passively notices that one of the books is slightly askew. If successful, then the DM tells the player that their character has found a book that is slightly askew. If unsuccessful, the DM says nothing. In that case, the player might decide that his character wants to search for a book that is slightly askew. Now, the DM asks the player to make an active roll as a Wisdom (Perception) check which results in a much wider range of numerical outcomes. If that roll is successful, then the DM tells the player that their character has found a book that is slightly askew. If unsuccessful, the DM informs the player that the character did not find anything.
After this happens, if the character successfully perceived a book that was slightly askew, then the player might say something like "Hmm, slightly askew huh? I wonder what that's all about." The DM might then make the liberal determination that this indicates that the character is taking the Study action and applying the Investigation skill on the resulting active skill check in order to determine if the character is able to figure out that the book actually controls a secret door. Or, the player might declare that the character physically interacts with the book -- this would be taking the Utilize action (potentially applying the Sleight of Hand skill if necessary) which would automatically (or with an extremely low DC) inform the players that the book actually controls a secret door.
The Perception skill is used to perceive things. Nothing more. There are other skills that are used for other purposes.
Yes! I have made this exact point a few times in this thread already! Many DMs DO run their games in exactly this manner. It's very common. It's also not the RAW method of handling skill checks. Which is fine, of course. Groups tweak the rules for their own purposes all the time. But the idea here is to determine what the rules say about how we should run these mechanics.
Your scenarios were actually RAW all the way up until this moment. By RAW, the Ranger's Passive Perception doesn't ever change in this way. It is up to interpretation and likely situational as determined by the DM as to whether or not the active Search is capable of detecting all 7 humanoids at once during the active search, but otherwise there wouldn't be any mechanism for "you all" to "see half a dozen other humanoids". Keep in mind that the result of a successful search does not necessarily result in being able to see the previously hidden creature. For example, if that creature is behind total cover, then the main way that you could have found them with your default senses is via hearing. Furthermore, even if the Ranger does see the previously hidden creature and communicates that creature's position to the rest of his party -- the result is that the party now knows that creature's location, but the rest of the party probably still cannot actually see that creature -- they just know where it is now.
What I mean is that checking a character's Passive Perception is checking to see if you will divulge information, not withhold it. Consider the following:
There is a hidden enemy along the path the characters are traveling, and as the characters move forward they get within a "perceptible distance". In all except the 4th of the following cases, player described actions do not call for a Perception (Wisdom) Check.
1. For some reason, the DM decides not to use the Passive Perception score of the point person (understanding this requires PP to not always be "on", as it were).
2. The Passive Perception of the point person is lower than the Hide DC to detect the hidden creature.
3. The Passive Perception of the point person is high enough to meet/beat the Hide DC of the hidden creature.
4. The players describe actions that would reasonably constitute a search and the DM calls for a Perception (Wisdom) Check.
5. The players do not describe actions that would reasonably have the DM calling for a Perception (Wisdom) Check, and yet the DM does anyway.
In scenario 1, the DM simply allows the characters to pass without revealing anything. In other words, the players were not tipped off in a way that would indicate they could search and find something.
In scenario 2, the DM simply allows the characters to pass without revealing anything. In other words, the players were not tipped off in a way that would indicate they could search and find something.
In scenario 3, the DM tells the point person that they notice a creature trying to hide off to the side. In other words, the players were not tipped off in a way that would indicate they could search and find something (because they've already found what they would find).
In scenario 4, the DM narrates the outcome of the die roll(s). In other words, the players were not tipped off in a way that would indicate they could search and find something (because they already did the search without the DM prompting them).
In scenario 5, the DM is having players perform a check their actions did not reasonably allow. They were "tipped off" that there was something to search for, and yet they've already done the search. So the only difference is that if they have a reasonable expectation of the DC, they know there was "something" even if they found "nothing".
My point is, in none of the cases where the game is played as intended (scenarios 1-4) did the DM "tip off" the players. Passive Perception was not used to conceal information (that there was something to find by searching), it was used to reveal it (by giving them the results of a search action if it was high enough). Scenario 5, in contrast, is not how the rules say the game should be played and would be the only scenario where players would be "tipped off" about anything.
So all of this business about not "tipping players off" is nonsense. In no situation where the game is played the way it's written would a DM be tipping their players off whether they use PP as always on or not. And, in fact, PP is not used to keep players in the dark, it's used to give them information their actions wouldn't necessarily provide; in a way, it's the opposite of "tip off prevention".
"Keep in mind that the result of a successful search does not necessarily result in being able to see the previously hidden creature"
Rules say a creature who success their stealth check are hidden until found. If the ranger rolled a search better than the assassin, the assasin is no longer hidden. Hidden is basically a condition, either on or off. (Invisible). So if you lose the conditoon, you lose it universally. Once one enemy sees you, they can point you out to their allies.
The alternative would be that the condition of being invisible(hidden) is a per-enemy condition, and that woukd suck keeping track of.
As for the rest of the assassins sidekicks their stealth checks were all lower than their boss.
I still think that you are reading the "sometimes" paragraph backwards. The point that the text is making is: Don't tip off the players. It is saying that if the DM always asks for an active check, then sometimes you would end up asking for one in a situation that would tip off the players whose characters are not actually currently searching. So, don't do that. In those situations, use Passive Perception instead.
In your example, Scenario #1 should never occur since the Passive Perception should be used.
I agree with Scenario #2. By NOT asking for an active check inappropriately you did NOT tip off the players. This is exactly what the "sometimes" paragraph is recommending -- use Passive Perception in scenarios like this.
I also agree with Scenario #3. Successful Passive Perception actually finds the thing. Not some clue that they should now search for the thing. If Passive Perception is successful, there is no reason to actively search. To bring back one of my examples from earlier, if I'm on my way out the door and I notice my car keys sitting on the counter then there is no reason to begin searching around for my car keys. I've already found them.
For Scenario #4, the Passive check should have already happened first when the characters get within a "perceptible distance". In other words, Scenario #4 should only occur after (not before) Scenario #2 and should NOT occur after Scenario #3.
Scenario #5 should not happen. The "sometimes" paragraph is making the exact point of telling us not to do it that way. In those situations, Use Passive Perception instead.
I feel like we are pretty much on the same page regarding how the mechanic is meant to be run. Perhaps the authors could have written that paragraph in the DMG more clearly to avoid unnecessary confusion. They didn't have to use the phrase "tips them off that there's something they should be searching for". Instead, they could have just said something like "Sometimes the players won't know that there is anything to search for, so their characters aren't searching. In those situations, use Passive Perception". They chose another way of saying it.
No, it doesn't work like that. "Hidden" does not equal "invisible", and neither of those is equal to "unseen".
For example, we can see each other across the courtyard. I walk behind a brick wall. I am unseen. You cannot see me. But I am not hidden. You can still hear me well enough to know exactly where I am located.
Alternatively, we can see each other across the courtyard. I walk behind a brick wall and take the Hide action. I succeed and I am now hidden. If you now Search for me, you are basically trying to locate my position by using your hearing since you cannot see through a brick wall. If you succeed in your Search, then I am no longer hidden. But you still cannot see me because I am still behind a brick wall. However, you would now know exactly where I am located and if I try to pop out to make a ranged attack, I will not have advantage. And so on.
Likewise, we begin with the same scenario but now you are also standing next to an ally. This time, after I successfully Hide, you walk across the courtyard and behind the same brick wall. You see me there automatically -- no active or passive Perception check required. I am found. You can now relay my exact position to your ally so that I am now not hidden from your ally. This means that your ally knows exactly where I am. But your ally still cannot see me because he cannot see through the brick wall.
I guess that's my problem, though. If it had said what you wrote in your second quote, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Except, it wasn't written that way, and the two are not similar enough for me to simply replace one with the other. You seem to be making the point that they say the same thing when they very much aren't.
All that said, it is nice to see that although you think all of the rules taken together give us a clear picture of how things are supposed to work, you also concede that it could have been written better. Hell, a single example of "Hiding In and Out of Combat" like they have for "Exploration", "Social Encounters" and "Combat" would have been nice. It's convoluted enough to deserve one, for sure.