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.
If you can only make a Wisdom (Perception) check when you take the Search action , why would the DMG say;
The above are all snippets of things you've said in this thread. In a discussion about some of the most poorly written rules rife with confusing sections, full of ambiguity, and potentially conflicting instructions, you consistently state your position with absolute certainty.
You do this to such a degree that you've convinced me that I don't think you are able to see possible legitimate, but conflicting, interpretations of what the rules are saying versus what they intend. And in reading different sections of teh rules, when encountering ambiguity, I believe a person needs to consider the different possible interpretations if they're going to figure out which interpretation is closest to intended. And the more you do this, the lest I trust that you can see the different valid interpretations and acknowledge that you chose one interpretation but a different interpretation might be valid.
In short, talking about confusing, ambiguous, conflicting, rules with absolute certainty makes me distrust those absolute answers all the more...
As a perfect example of this phenomenon:
Me: "Hidden is basically a condition, either on or off. (Invisible). "
up2ng: "No, it doesn't work like that. "Hidden" does not equal "invisible""
I don't know what rules hair you are trying to split here, but I was referring to the rules from the PHB for the definition of the Hide action that says, and I quote: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden."
So, I said "Hidden is basically a condition, either on or off. (Invisible). ",
rules said " Invisible condition while hidden"
you said " "Hidden" does not equal "invisible"",
and you do so with youre standard absolute certainty, "no it doesn't work like that".
And my question to you is, did you maybe misread the intention of my comment? Did you perhaps read more formality into what I was saying that I never intended? more importantly, if you were wrong in your interpretation of my comment, how would you know? You never start off with a statement like "if you meant (blah), then the rules dont support that". You have an interpretation, and you're absolutely certain of it. But what if I meant something else other than what you thought? What if my statement was nothing more than a colloquial invocation of the rules as written bit that says you have the invisible condition while hidden? You apparently didn't even consider that possible interpretation. You interpreted my statemetn as saying something else, and you replied with such absolute certtainty that your interpretation was my intended communication, that you never even asked, you never even prefixed your comment with "if you mean (blah)", or any clarifying statements that might acknowledge that you have an interpretation of my words, but also acknowledge that maybe your interpretation is wrong.
And my concern is that if you do what you just did to me, and you take the same approach to how you read and interpret the big book of ambiguous, messy, conflicting, confusing rules, then it makes me feel that you dont stop to even consider that there may be other interpretations besides the one your initial reading came up with, that other interpretations might be possible, or that maybe you're wrong.
So, for example, I'm going to say that whatever you think I said that caused you to respond with "No, it doesn't work like that. "Hidden" does not equal "invisible", and neither of those is equal to "unseen"." I am going to assert that whatever you think i said that caused this response, your interpretation of my words is wrong. I was invoking the rules that say you have "Invisible condition while hidden". What I said may have been ambiguous, sure, but one reasonable interpretation is that I was invoking the rules as written. Whihc means whatever interpretation you came up witih, was not the accurate interpretation. You were wrong.
Now, my concern with folks laying down absolute certain interpretations of what are actually ambiguous rules, is that they cannot see other interpretations as valid, they cannot acknowledge their interpretation might actually not be the correct interpretation. And I'm giving you a direct example right here in your response to my comment. I am telling you that you read and interpreted it incorrectly.
If you reply with "you should have said this instead", then that's just dodging the entire issue of acknowledging ambiguity and acknowledging that your interpretation isn't always correct. My comment may have been open to interpretation, but you didn't consider any other interpretation than whatever interpretation had you respond with "No it doesn't work like that". The RULES are open to interpretation, but you consistently only ever present one interpretation, YOUR interpretation, as the correct interpretation, and anything else is just wrong.
You immediately jumped to your interpretation of my comment to tell me the rule doesn't work like that. And if you use that same approach with the rules, you're going to miss a LOT.
Why would the players hand book describe all the rules related to Hiding and not mention passive perception?
when I first got the 2024 rule books, I read all the hide rules and thought, huh, DC15, and you're hidden. No mention of perception of enemies is mentioned. Why would I add it in there when they don't mention it at all?
You get how that might be a legitimate interpretation of the rules?
sure teh definition of Hide action also says " an enemy finds you", but that's doing a lot of heavy lifting there. it could mean you have to take the search action, or is could mean Search or passive perception either would work. Don't know.
As to your question, that specific text you quote about using passiver perception, this is where it is located in the DMG:
Chapter 2: Running the game
section: "Running Exploration"
subsection: "perception"
subsubsection: "when to call for a check"
subsubsubsection: "using passive perception"
Right?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2024/running-the-game#WhentoCallforaCheck
Its in the EXPLORATION section of the DMG, not COMBAT.
It seems to me that areasonable interpretation is that during EXPLORATION, if there is a trap or a secret door or hidden treasure or hidden creature, and the players are not demanding active roll checks, you as DM could use their passive perception if you're feeling generous.
Not that you HAVE to, not that passive perception is always on, but that they're walking through the jungle and there's an ambush ahead. If oyu suddenly say "roll perception", suddenly the players are goign to start asking questions. If you do NOT want to tip them off, you can use passive perception. BUt as Sabin76 pointed out, there are a LOT of ways for a DM to handle the situation without tipping the players off. Passive Percpetion is one option. But that doesn't say its always on.
Now, I get the interpretation that says passive is always on. It also fits this mess of confusing rules. But my initial reading of the rulebooks when I got the new 2024 books was "huh, dc 15, no more contested stealth v perception checks."
The Player's Handbook do mentionPassive Perception at several places, just not in Hide action specifically because its not related to it but rather with Perception which in turn may interact with it. The DMG also offer more guidance as well.
The Hide action does mention Perception though;
I take the subsubsubsection: "using passive perception" of the rules to fit with how i dm exploration versus combat:
During EXPLORATION, unless the players say otherwise, i assume they are being cautious, quiet, and searching for traps and ambushes. If they are running away from something or similar, then theyre not cautious, quiet, and searching. But otherwise, i dont try to act like a prosecuting attorney about their actions. I will use passive perception during exploration (outside combat) as long as its assumed theyre being cautious.
During COMBAT, unless they take the search action, i would assume they are distracted by combat and i would apply some sort of penalty to their passive.
The text you quote about using passive perception so as not to tip off the players is in the exploration section, not combat section. I apply different assumptions to exploration than combat, so i interpret the passive perception piece you quote within those assumptions.
This was answered earlier in the thread. This text immediately follows a more general statement that creatures can always use the Perception skill (in general) to find hidden creatures. The main way that a player can have their character do something to intentionally apply this skill is by Searching. The author is now also making an assumption that the reader will now think in their minds only about the active check mechanic because that's how the rule books say to run just about every other skill check in the game as a default. So, in this paragraph, the author is reminding prospective Dungeon Masters that the Perception skill works differently because it's a skill which models the use of our normal senses. It's reminding us that sometimes it's not appropriate to call for an active check because the players (and their characters) won't know that there is anything that could be found by Searching. In those circumstances, use Passive Perception instead.
No, I didn't. Perhaps the full context of this particular exchange has been forgotten. I'll try to piece it back together to explain what happened there.
You gave this example:
"
Ranger: i spend my action looking for where the arrow came from.
Dm: roll perception . . .
Dm: With the rangers perception check beating thr assassins stealth, the assassin is now visible to the party.
"
I responded to this by reminding folks who might be reading this thread that in this specific snippet of gameplay maybe the party really can see the assassin now, but in general this quite often will not be the case. It's pretty common that a creature that is found will remain unseen. Here's a portion of what I wrote about that:
"Keep in mind that the result of a successful search does not necessarily result in being able to see the previously hidden creature."
You then proceeded to argue with me about this, like so:
You quoted what I said and then proceeded to say why you thought I was wrong. That was the intention of your comment, and I did not misread it.
In situations like this where my statements were correct and then someone argues against those statements, I find it useful to say so plainly. It gives the person that is arguing a heads up that they are incorrect, which can be helpful to them, and it also makes it easier for future readers to find the correct information regarding the topic. That's what I did here. Then, I proceeded to reexplain what the rules actually say and then I provided an example. That's all very standard for this forum.
I have contributed to a lot of threads at this point. There have been plenty of threads where I make it clear that I was wrong about something that I said after someone else posts more correct information on the topic. I have also acknowledged that many of the rules have plenty of ambiguity where there can be multiple valid interpretations and those discussions tend to go differently. This just isn't one of those cases.
That's incorrect. Rules questions very often have a correct answer. Occasionally the rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation. The way that I present information generally reflects this based on the topic being discussed.
Yes, the main problem with how the hiding mechanics are presented in the rules is that it is spread out all over the place. People want to flip to one place and read the rule. This was also a problem with hiding in the 2014 rules. The authors should have done better in this regard.
In general, it's best to avoid adding mechanics and restrictions to a rule when such things are not actually written. As a rule of thumb, the rules do what they say but nothing more. The rules do not say that you have to take the Search action to find someone, so that's not a RAW restriction. The "heavy lifting" seems to be by design in this case since there are naturally so many edge cases that will just require a DM ruling to adjudicate.
In my opinion, it's only possible to arrive at this interpretation by misreading the text. Thus, it's not a "valid" or "reasonable" interpretation.
The concept that "you as DM could use their passive perception if you're feeling generous. Not that you HAVE to . . ." simply does not align with the text, which very explicitly states:
That's not a statement which provides an option. It's a direct instruction to the reader about how to run the game in a RAW manner.
As for whether or not Passive Perception is "always on" . . . first of all, of course it is. It models how your normal senses function. As for rules text, this is confirmed in the Rules Glossary:
Remember, depending on the specific circumstances that are happening in the moment, the DM always has the option of applying disadvantage to ability checks, and passive checks ARE ability checks:
There is no rules support of this and it's not how the game is intended to be run. The authors went out of their way to include Passive Perception scores within every monster stat block in the game. The main purpose of this is so that the monster can find hidden enemies. There is nothing that suggests that being in combat makes it more difficult to perceive a hidden enemy. An argument can be made that it should actually be easier. If you are ambushed in everyday life, you might be daydreaming or tired or preoccupied and caught totally unaware. In combat, you probably just watched the enemy duck behind cover.
If you are dead set on homebrewing this aspect of the game, you'll definitely want to discuss it at Session 0.
Yeahhh.... im not reading that wall of text, especially if its a one-way conversation.