So one of the feats i typically like to take is observant for most my characters and I've noticed alot of DM's don't really take into consideration passive perception/investigation and I can kind of understand why they don't because it's one of those things where feels weird to make a call on. Would your character see it normally or do you have to roll to see it? type of thing and I feel they kind of counteract eachother..
My question here is, how would you separate the two in terms of roleplay? what would trigger passive versus actual rolling?
If it's passive, then there's no roll. I have seen some DMs who still require the character to make an attempt to perceive or investigate something, but the player doesn't have to roll if the passive score is higher than the DC required. And I have seen other DMs who give passive checks away like freebies where if there's a secret door that requires a 20 perception check and a character has 21 passive perception, they would automatically notice it. I feel like the latter is less exciting and removes some of the mystery of exploration from the game.
Yeah that's where alot of my concern and question even arises from, how do you use them without them either breaking the flow of a dungeon or have them borderline useless?
Sorry to say, I usually just let Passive Skills die and if I want the players to not know things, I roll the Checks for them. However, if your concern is primarily about that particular part of the Observant Feat: I usually replace that part with "Choose between either your Investigation or Perception Skill, you must have Proficiency with the Skill you select. Your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the chosen skill." That's right, I replace it with Expertise for one skill. Which to be honest I feel is a much better idea than Passive Skills. Of course, I'm biased on that front.
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.
For example, "Make a Perception check for each 10ft of passage. How long is the passage? Half a mile."
They are not for when the character is being passive; they are for when the players are being passive (i.e. not actively rolling dice).
Passive scores apply when the players do not roll dice. If the players are actively searching for secret doors or traps for example, the DM would check the passive perception or passive investigation as appropriate against the DC and then narrate the result.
Personally, I don't find rolling for secret doors or traps that my character should be able to find anyway to be either fun or exciting. If a character invests resources in being able to find things, figure things out or disarm them then that should be narratively rewarded in my opinion.
Passive Perception done right feels natural, it flows with the narrative and sounds like it was meant to be:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost. (DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18) DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, Baily notices a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall. Baily: I'm going to go check it out! DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
In this example the passive was high enough to catch the secret door, the narrative was paused for a brief moment to check numbers, and the information was delivered in such a way that it gave credit to the person with the passive, and flowed with the description of the room. It's possible to also write down "You see a secret door on the east side of the room" on a post it note, or in a text, and give it to the player, but I find that is generally followed by the person announcing it, so I just weave it into the narrative.
I also did not note that they found the mechanism to open the secret door, only that they found the door. This is a bit of a nuance for the DM's who feel like passive Perception is a "freebie to find anything", allowing you to still make secret doors have some mystery. The knowledge of a secret door is not the same as knowledge about the way to open it; does the party break the door, do they search for the mechanism, or do they cast a spell, it leaves that up to the players.
--
As to passive investigation, I'm not a fan of it, I generally don't use it. In my mind it equates to the comedic effect of placing your hand on a torch sconce and all of a sudden a secret door opens. It's like turning the investigation of a room into a Scooby Doo episode where one of the players sits on a chair and vanishes while the rest of the gang is none the wiser. However, if it's something that you do use, it's possible to make the same narrative flow out of the situation:
DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage. Baily: Hey guys, come look at this! (DM checks for passive Investigation, Trosk beats the DC to find the switch to open the door) DM: Trosk, as you're checking the door out you notice that there's a strange series of marks on the wall next to you. Each mark is on it's own small stone, you begin to randomly poke at them and you suddenly cause the door to shift, it seems you found the way to open the door.
---
Using that approach you now give the observant feat a chance of having some time in the spotlight and make it feel more natural to what's going on in the game.
I use passive checks when ever my players state that they are looking around a room or otherwise observing their surroundings. I will have them make an active check if they are looking for something specific.
"We search the room" would be passive perception.
Walking down a dungeon corridor where there is a pit trap would be a passive perception thing unless they were actively searching that particular section of hallway for traps then it would be active. O assume characters are generally on the alert and looking out for stuff like traps, but not making a detailed and intense search.
"I search the desk for the letter from the count" I would have them roll.
Passive Perception done right feels natural, it flows with the narrative and sounds like it was meant to be:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost. (DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18) DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, Baily notices a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall. Baily: I'm going to go check it out! DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
In this example the passive was high enough to catch the secret door, the narrative was paused for a brief moment to check numbers, and the information was delivered in such a way that it gave credit to the person with the passive, and flowed with the description of the room. It's possible to also write down "You see a secret door on the east side of the room" on a post it note, or in a text, and give it to the player, but I find that is generally followed by the person announcing it, so I just weave it into the narrative.
This still feels like a freebie to me. The party walks in and Baily, through no special action of their own just finds the secret door. So either you settle for a non-secret door or you set the DC above the character's passive perception just for the purpose of keeping the door a secret. I don't like either option. What if you staged the narrative like:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost. Baily: I would like to take a closer look those murals around the room. (DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18) DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, you notice a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall. Baily: I'm going to go check it out! DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
You still laid out the bait, but now you leave it up to the character to take the initiative and kick off that perception check. Had the DC of the secret door been 20, you simply ask Baily to roll a perception check instead. That way you don't tip off the players in the process. If Baily has the observant feat, Baily's player should play the character in a curious and observant manner that plays to Baily's strengths.
This still feels like a freebie to me. The party walks in and Baily, through no special action of their own just finds the secret door. So either you settle for a non-secret door or you set the DC above the character's passive perception just for the purpose of keeping the door a secret. I don't like either option. What if you staged the narrative like:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost. Baily: I would like to take a closer look those murals around the room. (DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18) DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, you notice a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall. Baily: I'm going to go check it out! DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
You still laid out the bait, but now you leave it up to the character to take the initiative and kick off that perception check. Had the DC of the secret door been 20, you simply ask Baily to roll a perception check instead. That way you don't tip off the players in the process. If Baily has the observant feat, Baily's player should play the character in a curious and observant manner that plays to Baily's strengths.
Both approaches were effective, and both gave recognition to the passive, whether natural or with Observant. I can appreciate your desire for the players to do something before giving the information, it allows you to choose whether their actions would allow them to find the information or not. For example, if they just peeked in the room and then moved on, why tell them there's a secret door, they technically never entered the room. I chose to do it preemptively, you chose to wait until the player(s) dictate an action, in the end the same result was achieved.
so would it be better to have the passive stats give extra narrative to give clues about extra things in the room like "you noticed ____ out the corner of your eye" type thing just less obvious? i dunno xD
I still suggest not using Passive Skill Checks, and simply the DM rolling in any case that a Passive Skill would come up. If your rolling a lot your players will never notice, which means that you both keep the variance of rolling and the keeping of immersion of passive. I think that the variance is important for keeping the game fresh.
In the end it is up to the DM as to whether to use any part of the game, in this case Passives.
The biggest thing that I would caution is to not make those changes lightly and to consider how it impacts other aspects of the game. Dropping Passives will make tracking numbers easier as the DM, but increase the amount of rolls you or your players will make. It removes a floating number that may make certain secret/hidden things trivial, but it could potentially trivialize feats like Observant.
It also creates a bit of a conundrum:
If a player can roll Perception as many times as they need until they get a success, with no fear of any consequence, to find that secret door, why have them roll at all? If a player can roll Perception as many times as they want, with no chance of ever succeeding, to find that secret door, why have them roll at all?
Wouldn't it be easier to check the passive and check to see if there's even a need to roll first?
Oh in my case, you only get one Perception Check for an individual thing, kind of like how you only get one knowledge based check. For something like a Secret Door you can also make an Investigation Check, as you can find it by careful searching as well as just seeing it.
Currently I don't allow multiple Investigations on the same thing either, but I do have a conundrum. In 3e there was the concept of taking a 20, if you had 10 Minutes free you could take a 20 roll on your Search Check. I'm not sure if I should include that or not. It would prevent getting stuck, but it might make it too easy. What do you guys think?
You can watch Matt Mercer deal with this a lot with Caduceus. He'll describe a place and then often give Cad extra extra details. Far from feeling cheep, it gives him a distinct role in the party that everyone values; Cad is the guy that notices things, and the team trusts his senses and instincts.
As a player I'm working with my DM a lot with this exact issue. My Aarakocra Inquisitor Rogue took Observant and just leveled up to 13. With all of her bonuses, Expertise and Reliable Talent, she has a Passive Perception of 30, Passive Investigation of 26, and Passive Insight of 25. She is BUILT to notice everything. Ignoring my passives, or replacing them with some other system, would literally nerf my character. (Her character sheet, for those interested: https://ddb.ac/characters/4475754/ZbPI0W)
It's my responsibility to make sure my DM knew when my Passive numbers started getting super high, and he's been very good about taking those numbers into account. He actually uses my character as a way to keep the story going, using my high numbers to notice things that everyone could miss if he made people check. It keeps me feeling useful and special, and he gets the benefit of knowing we won't miss something he has planned just because of bad rolls.
Currently I don't allow multiple Investigations on the same thing either, but I do have a conundrum. In 3e there was the concept of taking a 20, if you had 10 Minutes free you could take a 20 roll on your Search Check. I'm not sure if I should include that or not. It would prevent getting stuck, but it might make it too easy. What do you guys think?
Made me laugh a littlle. Yeah I guess that's true, but less the take 10 and more take 20 is what I was asking about. I don't feel that passive checks are the same thing as taking a 20.
Made me laugh a littlle. Yeah I guess that's true, but less the take 10 and more take 20 is what I was asking about. I don't feel that passive checks are the same thing as taking a 20.
I see no reason you couldn't add it in, give it the same "After about 10 minutes pass you notice...". I've had a few instances where my players have brought up the Take 20 rule when things got stagnant and I'll ask them to describe what they're doing again. From there I'll comment how they use some valuable time to dig through everything, make any adjustments to the creatures, npcs, etc. to reflect the time passed, and then explain what they found, if anything.
Remember that it's not just Perception, Insight and Investigation that have passive skills. All skills do.
For example a character who's lived their entire life in a forest climbing trees every day and so has high Acrobatics or Athletics shouldn't need to roll to climb a tree where someone less strong or nimble would - because their passive skill automatically beat the DC.
I definitely see the passive skills as having a definitive use. It follows 5e's philosophy of speeding the game along and keeping things going and rewards the characters for their specialities.
So one of the feats i typically like to take is observant for most my characters and I've noticed alot of DM's don't really take into consideration passive perception/investigation and I can kind of understand why they don't because it's one of those things where feels weird to make a call on. Would your character see it normally or do you have to roll to see it? type of thing and I feel they kind of counteract eachother..
My question here is, how would you separate the two in terms of roleplay? what would trigger passive versus actual rolling?
If it's passive, then there's no roll. I have seen some DMs who still require the character to make an attempt to perceive or investigate something, but the player doesn't have to roll if the passive score is higher than the DC required. And I have seen other DMs who give passive checks away like freebies where if there's a secret door that requires a 20 perception check and a character has 21 passive perception, they would automatically notice it. I feel like the latter is less exciting and removes some of the mystery of exploration from the game.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah that's where alot of my concern and question even arises from, how do you use them without them either breaking the flow of a dungeon or have them borderline useless?
Sorry to say, I usually just let Passive Skills die and if I want the players to not know things, I roll the Checks for them. However, if your concern is primarily about that particular part of the Observant Feat: I usually replace that part with "Choose between either your Investigation or Perception Skill, you must have Proficiency with the Skill you select. Your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the chosen skill." That's right, I replace it with Expertise for one skill. Which to be honest I feel is a much better idea than Passive Skills. Of course, I'm biased on that front.
Honestly this is how I originally interpreted the feat when I started xD it's not a bad idea in order to simplify things
From the PHB.
For example, "Make a Perception check for each 10ft of passage. How long is the passage? Half a mile."
They are not for when the character is being passive; they are for when the players are being passive (i.e. not actively rolling dice).
Passive scores apply when the players do not roll dice. If the players are actively searching for secret doors or traps for example, the DM would check the passive perception or passive investigation as appropriate against the DC and then narrate the result.
Personally, I don't find rolling for secret doors or traps that my character should be able to find anyway to be either fun or exciting. If a character invests resources in being able to find things, figure things out or disarm them then that should be narratively rewarded in my opinion.
Passive Perception done right feels natural, it flows with the narrative and sounds like it was meant to be:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost.
(DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18)
DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, Baily notices a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall.
Baily: I'm going to go check it out!
DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
In this example the passive was high enough to catch the secret door, the narrative was paused for a brief moment to check numbers, and the information was delivered in such a way that it gave credit to the person with the passive, and flowed with the description of the room. It's possible to also write down "You see a secret door on the east side of the room" on a post it note, or in a text, and give it to the player, but I find that is generally followed by the person announcing it, so I just weave it into the narrative.
I also did not note that they found the mechanism to open the secret door, only that they found the door. This is a bit of a nuance for the DM's who feel like passive Perception is a "freebie to find anything", allowing you to still make secret doors have some mystery. The knowledge of a secret door is not the same as knowledge about the way to open it; does the party break the door, do they search for the mechanism, or do they cast a spell, it leaves that up to the players.
--
As to passive investigation, I'm not a fan of it, I generally don't use it. In my mind it equates to the comedic effect of placing your hand on a torch sconce and all of a sudden a secret door opens. It's like turning the investigation of a room into a Scooby Doo episode where one of the players sits on a chair and vanishes while the rest of the gang is none the wiser. However, if it's something that you do use, it's possible to make the same narrative flow out of the situation:
DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
Baily: Hey guys, come look at this!
(DM checks for passive Investigation, Trosk beats the DC to find the switch to open the door)
DM: Trosk, as you're checking the door out you notice that there's a strange series of marks on the wall next to you. Each mark is on it's own small stone, you begin to randomly poke at them and you suddenly cause the door to shift, it seems you found the way to open the door.
---
Using that approach you now give the observant feat a chance of having some time in the spotlight and make it feel more natural to what's going on in the game.
I use passive checks when ever my players state that they are looking around a room or otherwise observing their surroundings. I will have them make an active check if they are looking for something specific.
"We search the room" would be passive perception.
Walking down a dungeon corridor where there is a pit trap would be a passive perception thing unless they were actively searching that particular section of hallway for traps then it would be active. O assume characters are generally on the alert and looking out for stuff like traps, but not making a detailed and intense search.
"I search the desk for the letter from the count" I would have them roll.
This still feels like a freebie to me. The party walks in and Baily, through no special action of their own just finds the secret door. So either you settle for a non-secret door or you set the DC above the character's passive perception just for the purpose of keeping the door a secret. I don't like either option. What if you staged the narrative like:
DM: You enter the ancient chamber, the smell of stagnant, dry air is heavy. There is a fine layer of dust on everything you see, the carved murals on the walls depict scenes from an civilization long since lost.
Baily: I would like to take a closer look those murals around the room.
(DM scans cheat sheet to check passive Perceptions, Baily has a score of 19, the secret door has a DC of 18)
DM: As you shine the lantern around the room taking in the reliefs on the columns and the strange brazier in the center of the room, you notice a faint distrubance of the dust somewhere by the east wall.
Baily: I'm going to go check it out!
DM: You notice that there's a tiny spot near a crack in the wall that the dust hasn't settled like the rest of the room. As you note this, you realize that it's not so much a crack, as it appears to be more like a seam, you believe you've found a secret passage.
You still laid out the bait, but now you leave it up to the character to take the initiative and kick off that perception check. Had the DC of the secret door been 20, you simply ask Baily to roll a perception check instead. That way you don't tip off the players in the process. If Baily has the observant feat, Baily's player should play the character in a curious and observant manner that plays to Baily's strengths.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Both approaches were effective, and both gave recognition to the passive, whether natural or with Observant. I can appreciate your desire for the players to do something before giving the information, it allows you to choose whether their actions would allow them to find the information or not. For example, if they just peeked in the room and then moved on, why tell them there's a secret door, they technically never entered the room. I chose to do it preemptively, you chose to wait until the player(s) dictate an action, in the end the same result was achieved.
so would it be better to have the passive stats give extra narrative to give clues about extra things in the room like "you noticed ____ out the corner of your eye" type thing just less obvious? i dunno xD
I still suggest not using Passive Skill Checks, and simply the DM rolling in any case that a Passive Skill would come up. If your rolling a lot your players will never notice, which means that you both keep the variance of rolling and the keeping of immersion of passive. I think that the variance is important for keeping the game fresh.
In the end it is up to the DM as to whether to use any part of the game, in this case Passives.
The biggest thing that I would caution is to not make those changes lightly and to consider how it impacts other aspects of the game. Dropping Passives will make tracking numbers easier as the DM, but increase the amount of rolls you or your players will make. It removes a floating number that may make certain secret/hidden things trivial, but it could potentially trivialize feats like Observant.
It also creates a bit of a conundrum:
If a player can roll Perception as many times as they need until they get a success, with no fear of any consequence, to find that secret door, why have them roll at all?
If a player can roll Perception as many times as they want, with no chance of ever succeeding, to find that secret door, why have them roll at all?
Wouldn't it be easier to check the passive and check to see if there's even a need to roll first?
Oh in my case, you only get one Perception Check for an individual thing, kind of like how you only get one knowledge based check. For something like a Secret Door you can also make an Investigation Check, as you can find it by careful searching as well as just seeing it.
Currently I don't allow multiple Investigations on the same thing either, but I do have a conundrum. In 3e there was the concept of taking a 20, if you had 10 Minutes free you could take a 20 roll on your Search Check. I'm not sure if I should include that or not. It would prevent getting stuck, but it might make it too easy. What do you guys think?
You can watch Matt Mercer deal with this a lot with Caduceus. He'll describe a place and then often give Cad extra extra details. Far from feeling cheep, it gives him a distinct role in the party that everyone values; Cad is the guy that notices things, and the team trusts his senses and instincts.
As a player I'm working with my DM a lot with this exact issue. My Aarakocra Inquisitor Rogue took Observant and just leveled up to 13. With all of her bonuses, Expertise and Reliable Talent, she has a Passive Perception of 30, Passive Investigation of 26, and Passive Insight of 25. She is BUILT to notice everything. Ignoring my passives, or replacing them with some other system, would literally nerf my character. (Her character sheet, for those interested: https://ddb.ac/characters/4475754/ZbPI0W)
It's my responsibility to make sure my DM knew when my Passive numbers started getting super high, and he's been very good about taking those numbers into account. He actually uses my character as a way to keep the story going, using my high numbers to notice things that everyone could miss if he made people check. It keeps me feeling useful and special, and he gets the benefit of knowing we won't miss something he has planned just because of bad rolls.
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
3e: Take 10/20 = 10/20 + Search/Spot
5e: Passive = 10 + Perception/Investigation
Looks like it's already added into the game.
Made me laugh a littlle. Yeah I guess that's true, but less the take 10 and more take 20 is what I was asking about. I don't feel that passive checks are the same thing as taking a 20.
I see no reason you couldn't add it in, give it the same "After about 10 minutes pass you notice...". I've had a few instances where my players have brought up the Take 20 rule when things got stagnant and I'll ask them to describe what they're doing again. From there I'll comment how they use some valuable time to dig through everything, make any adjustments to the creatures, npcs, etc. to reflect the time passed, and then explain what they found, if anything.
Remember that it's not just Perception, Insight and Investigation that have passive skills. All skills do.
For example a character who's lived their entire life in a forest climbing trees every day and so has high Acrobatics or Athletics shouldn't need to roll to climb a tree where someone less strong or nimble would - because their passive skill automatically beat the DC.
I definitely see the passive skills as having a definitive use. It follows 5e's philosophy of speeding the game along and keeping things going and rewards the characters for their specialities.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).