Actually, thank you Saga. I should have instead asked you and CC and Yurei how you do use passive scores. That probably would have saved a lot of time.
The way to fix passive perception without it being dumb is to just give traps a hide check -- i.e. the trap has a hide check of +8 (vs passive perception) instead of a DC of 18.
Your opinion, which is fine. I’m going to go with Jeremy Crawford’s explanation of how they should be used as a floor, perception and investigation wise. If your passive isn’t the floor then the Observant feat would be useless and there wouldn’t be any passive scores used ever, which is absolutely RAW incorrect.
When I DM, I use passive for perception and investigation. I have a cheat sheet with my players characters PP and PI scores on them so I don’t have to ask. I agree that having the passives for all skills would cheapen reliable talent which is why I have them roll other skills. Their PP and PI are their floor, the others are just what they roll. If I didn’t do it that way I couldn’t justify Observant or reliable talent being useful.
I'm not creating a house rule though. JC has made it clear that passive scores as a minimum for active rolls is RAI. And nothing about playing it that way contradicts RAW. So how is it a house rule?
I mean, we've been over that isn't provided for RAW, and contradicts the "passive = average" thing that is printed, so I don't understand how you're saying that. Call it RAI if you must, but it "flat out" isn't written.
It's not a difference of "opinion." Certain things are written about how this works. Skill floors isn't written. Thus it isn't RAW. That's a fact, jack.
A lot of good discussion, but I haven't seen this point... so I'm going to wade in with my claymore.
Perception (and for good measure I'll include investigation and insight) checks are dumb, and I don't like 'em. They stink. (You're mileage may vary)
Didn't need them the first 2 decades or so of D&D. I'm not considering searching for secret doors on a d6 as eligible - that was a specific task. There was some messiness with listen checks which slowed down the fun. But by and large, finding a thing was done in conversation. You said where you looked, and if it was there, bingo you found it. This required detailed description from the DM, with emphasis and tone to help guide the players through voice along. Since then and today, many other rpgs just don't have them (perception checks). Some rpgs actively allow things like perception and investigation like rolls to automatically succeed. And others just tell you the GM to the players what they ask to know. And they still work. Work fine in fact. No perception/investigation/insight roll needed. In fact, the gumshoe system which is all about those three things... just have them succeed. They're too important.
It's a rubbish roll because what is the consequence of failure. Sure, that ambush or trap (but those are passive right?)... and anyway but how often are you using it for that. I mean, its still problematic in those moments, but searching for the watchamacallit in the doohickey, the whatshername down by the whereeveritis - that's where these rolls happen. "Oh no you failed. Pack it up everyone, the plot has ground to a halt, the secret talon of everstar will remain unfound in this drawer..." but no, the DM does back flips and cartwheels and even though it was a 7, reveals just enough to keep the players on track, if not actually just divulging everything anyway. Sigh... just tell them already. Watch Matt, Coleville, Jeremy, Aq.Inc... for what I believe is a typical treatment of this skill. It's all fine and dandy when the player gifts the DM a 21 on the roll, because the DM really wants to impart the information they have embedded in the scene to continue the game. When one of their players flubs with an 11, then that DC20 roll is suddenly a DC10 roll and that info comes out anyway. If you're really good you can alter the result to not be as useful but still be directing. But its the DM who is doing the work here. The dramatic moment isn't whether someone makes a search roll, it's when they follow they bloody slithering tracks down to the basement to... right?
It would be less silly if DMs (at least the many I watch online, or the few I play with) only ask for a roll "after" revealing the obvious, or revealing up to their passive, and then the perception, the investigation, the insight roll only coming in for those last bits of really juicy info - but they usually are asked for right after a player asks a question right up front. "I look around the room what do I see?" Roll perception says the DM. Can you imagine this in the modern workplace? everyone rolling perception all the time to find their coffee mug, to find their desk, to instantly know before any dialogue has occurred what their friend is thinking, to understand the intent of people at the watercooler, to be to find the whiteboard marker in the second drawer of their withdrawn colleague. It's silly. Your response may be, that isn't life and death... you wouldn;t ask for a roll to find the watercooler, and I wouldn't believe you. Put another way that is life and death, pick any action movie... pick game of thrones... look at how many "perception rolls" the characters are making, and how many they are missing. Yes it is fiction, but its fiction our games aspire to. I'd liken perception checks to the old fumble rule where you could decapitate yourself if you rolled a 1, and then a 100 on a percentile with a sword. No one wants their hero to be an idiot.
Back in the day, the DM made these type of rolls for her players. This was a handy arbitrator of allowing chance to dictate "when" (and not if), and to who the DM would spill the beans about the scene. They rolled behind their screen unannounced and the PCs found the gem, noticed the wry smile of the merchant and ran into an ambush if the DM felt the roll was poor (he added the most "observant's" bonuses to that hidden check). I find the passive scores actually more helpful in this regard. I don't have to roll. It's a set DC for opposed skill checks. In fact, I'd prefer it if these obvious detection skills weren't active skills at all. The other incredibly important benefit of the DM knowingand not the player is that the player does not know for sure if what the DM is telling him is actually the truth. This is not at all what happens with an open PC roll. Imagine the PC tailing a suspect. The suspect tries to give him the slip by swapping coats with an accomplice. This is an opposed stealth vs perception. If the player rolls poorly, the swap happens... but the player knows something is up immediately because they rolled low. If I had rolled for them instead, I can instead describe them continuing to follow the same coat until theynaturally get suspicious through my words and in game actions. We lost something when we took away DMs secret rolls. (of couse house rule yadda yadda)
If you're playing sandbox style and are using the player's die results to guide you and your narrative, then the more dice the better. You're feeding off that 13 Investigation to make something up on the spot. It's thrilling, and a legitimate style of play. If you're reading a module that says DC15 Int (investigation) and your player rolled 14, and you've enforced the "no reroll on same check" and "no mass party check"... AND... that module does not describe the consequence of that failure as another narrative branch, the rules have just arbitrarily got into the way of your game because dice. Now you have to either follow that DC and not provide the players the things, or fudge. If you're fudging, then why the roll? If there are no consequences of failure in searching a crowd of people, then why is there a roll?
TLDR: Keep Passives. Ditch actives, unless the DM rolls for you. DMs should just move the plot along and provide the required info.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
TLDR: Keep Passives. Ditch actives, unless the DM rolls for you. DMs should just move the plot along and provide the required info.
What you actually mean is "PCs should automatically notice everything without rolling".
Which I disagree with, but you do have a generally valid point: poring over the dungeon searching for that one secret door that lets you into the next section is obnoxious and boring. If it's really necessary to find something to proceed to the next part of the adventure, either come up with an alternate means of finding the thing, or have the roll determine how long it takes to find the key clue, rather than whether you find it at all.
If there's no particular requirement that the PCs find the thing, though, just let them fail. Lots of things it's fine if they aren't found.
What you actually mean is "PCs should automatically notice everything without rolling".
No. PCs should notice exactly as much as the DM deems fit for them to notice in the moment... using any number of mathematical formulae they like (or none at all). Just note... if you the DM decides to tell the players nothing... you're going to have a very ... slow... game.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
I'm not creating a house rule though. JC has made it clear that passive scores as a minimum for active rolls is RAI. And nothing about playing it that way contradicts RAW. So how is it a house rule?
I mean, we've been over that isn't provided for RAW, and contradicts the "passive = average" thing that is printed, so I don't understand how you're saying that. Call it RAI if you must, but it "flat out" isn't written.
It's not a difference of "opinion." Certain things are written about how this works. Skill floors isn't written. Thus it isn't RAW. That's a fact, jack.
So anything that is not explicitly provided for in RAW is a house rule? This is an interesting position. To me, when a DM adjudicates ambiguity or in-between areas in the rules as written, that isn't called making up house rules. That is called being a dungeon master.
I mean, I disagree that it's a superior system generally to let certain things just happen instead of checking everything with a d20... modern D&D since 3 has embraced that and not looked back because it's vastly simpler than all the various systems we had before, and framing everything in the game in terms of a d20 roll really helps players latch on to expectations. But your point about "don't put a pass-or-game-over check in your game unless you mean it" is well taken, and its the number one advice I try to keep in mind when designing stuff. If it's DC 15 to find the secret passage that the bad guy fled down, you better actually have an answer to what the story looks like when no one finds that, and embrace it. Sandbox usually handles this fine, but sometimes the written campaign paths don't keep that in mind which can lead to awkwardness. That's more of a DM/author note for good design than a reason to ditch Perception checks though.
I may fail 99 times, but if the 100th try is successful, I perceived the hidden thing. So how many attempts does it take to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts? Should I just take my time in each room never making an active roll for fear that I might roll low and have the DM tell me tough luck I took your one try? Or should I wait patiently for the DM to acknowledge the DC of the hidden thing is below my passive perception?
Or will be DM be one of those, "Passive scores only means no die is rolled. I am still going to make the player tell me the character is searching before I let him find the secret?" folks?
to have an average you need 2 rolls minimum. Do we need to go down this rabbit hole?
I may fail 99 times, but if the 100th try is successful, I perceived the hidden thing. So how many attempts does it take to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts? Should I just take my time in each room never making an active roll for fear that I might roll low and have the DM tell me tough luck I took your one try? Or should I wait patiently for the DM to acknowledge the DC of the hidden thing is below my passive perception?
Or will be DM be one of those, "Passive scores only means no die is rolled. I am still going to make the player tell me the character is searching before I let him find the secret?" folks?
to have an average you need 2 rolls minimum. Do we need to go down this rabbit hole?
I'd prefer not to, but since you brought it up, I'll quote the rule right from the PHB. An average in the context of a passive skill doesn't require any rolls at all.
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls.
Now. I realize the OP was about specifically passive perception.
but think long and hard here.
do you have problems not being told every time any NPC talks “he’s lying.” “He’s telling the truth” for every single conversation?
or anytime you see someone walking “he seems shady.” “He seems in a hurry” “he seems like he farted too hard and crapped his pants”
because those are the things you’d get from insight checks. We/you are all up in arms and some of us are even demanding everything below our passive perception should be just given to us. But if that’s the case. You have to do it for all the passive checks.
i don’t see the up and arms for the investigation. I don’t see the up in arms for the insight. Just perception. Which is the most vague and generic of those 3 skills.
when I dm, no trap is a perception check unless it’s specifically stated to be a perception check, OR, you know what kind of traps to look for ahead of time.
dont have that Info? Then you’re looking at an investigation trap. As not knowing what kind of traps there are, you wouldn’t know a “general” location they would be set up, so you wouldn’t notice them by “casually looking around” which is what perception is.
as to Jeremy Crawford’s opinion, of the rai. Because that’s what it is.
so, does he think that an observant, raven queen warlock, who is expertise via rogue or prodigy or etc, in perception with their 20 wis and 20 charisma. Does he really think and feel that the rules intend this character has their passive perception of 37?
thats what’s intended? This person literally goes anywhere, and is just omniscient like they are a literal god? If thats the rai. Then reliable talent. Is a waste of a skill. Rogues got to put in 10 level ups of work. To just expand a pre-existing condition for insight, investigation, and perception. To the other skills they have that they are PROFICIENT in. —— BUT WAIT. Passive scores DO NOT require proficiency.
so, a 20 wis, observant person, RAI deserves to reliable talent always have a 20 perception. Without being proficient in it at all. Always have a FLOOR of 20...
but a rogue, with reliable talent and proficiency in perception, can do worse than them, at any given time because their passive is lower. Despite having reliable talent.
Are dice rolls important? Are all equally important? Which are the least important? Which have the least consequence of failure? Which happen the most? How often are players rolling, and do they have investment in every roll? Are the other players leaning forward and also paying attention? Seeing a failure, what do the other players immediately do? Try to jump on the bandwagon and solve the situation, or collectively groan because something bad is going to happen?
These are playstyle questions. No right and wrong.
I've seen games where dice rolls happen all the time for everything. Failure is you don't get what you want, nothing more. Perception checks are rife, and as such, mean the least for any individual player, cos the next player jumps right in and also tries. Roleplaying, clever wordplay and ideas can (*certainly not guaranteed) take a backseat to "I say nice things to the king" roll persuasion, nat 20. Woohoo! vs... 4 minutes of amazing in character dialogue that stuns everyone at the table... and the DM says no roll required. (again not mutually exclusive... in fact I ask for the roll after the roleplay not before so I can give advantage or wave the need, or shudder... hit with disadvantage, but more importantly to have the roll).
Same with searches and insight checks. Where do you search? What are you looking for from the duke? More directed to involve the player and give me some wiggle room to know how to read the result.
I've also been in games were dice rolls are rare. When they are checked its incredibly important. Failing carries serious narrative consequences. Things will be irrevocably different after this roll. The PC holds onto the die just a little before rolling because... eek!
I strive for the latter (few but important rolls) in all my gaming and try to minimise the former (lots of rolls, but each not that critical). In D&D it is harder than in other systems... because the system likes to roll dice, but it can certainly flex to many play styles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
My point is that whatever the trigger is for passive perception to produce that numerical result is what a player will do in order to get that result. To use your own example:
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."
If the players know this is what their DM requires, then they will announce this every single time. And that's fine if you want to play things that way. It does not run afoul of RAW. But if you're going to set special conditions that require a prompt the player will surely deliver, then why not just skip the whole charade and let it be a means to an end? My table time is valuable and I'd rather just let the players get the result of the time-consuming process without making them jump through technicalities to achieve it.
And like Yurei mentioned previously, if the PC is discussing something with another party member during the travel time, well that seems like a great time to use disadvantage on the PC's passive perception for a -5.
This feels like adversarial DMing. Maybe that says more about me...
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
Have you ever been looking for something that was right in front of you despite being fairly observant normally?
That's an argument for bringing back 3e take 20. Which I probably wouldn't bring back in a formal way, but if I have reason to think the PCs will keep butting their head up against some problem, I'll just ask them how long they're willing to spend on it and if it sounds like enough they find it (of course, I think adventures should have time pressure).
My point is that whatever the trigger is for passive perception to produce that numerical result is what a player will do in order to get that result. To use your own example:
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."
If the players know this is what their DM requires, then they will announce this every single time. And that's fine if you want to play things that way. It does not run afoul of RAW. But if you're going to set special conditions that require a prompt the player will surely deliver, then why not just skip the whole charade and let it be a means to an end? My table time is valuable and I'd rather just let the players get the result of the time-consuming process without making them jump through technicalities to achieve it.
And like Yurei mentioned previously, if the PC is discussing something with another party member during the travel time, well that seems like a great time to use disadvantage on the PC's passive perception for a -5.
This feels like adversarial DMing. Maybe that says more about me...
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
Have you ever been looking for something that was right in front of you despite being fairly observant normally?
I have but I always find it eventually :)
For me, that is the essence of passive perception. I'm usually the one that is called in to find something because I'm pretty observant. But I have my moments where I'm glad that those "keys" weren't a snake.
I liked the descriptions of passives as being the DC for when something else is actively trying to hide or lie to the PC, or perhaps their active part was in the past so I roll to see if their attempts were ultimately successful.
I agree that there shouldn't be a roll if the outcome is critical for the success of the group to the point that the DM fudges the rolls. There shouldn't be a roll there unless there are narrative consequences. If the BBEG has clearly gone through a secret passage, the active perception check may involve finding the trigger. Immediate success means that the party is right on the evil one's heels. One failure means that he's able to grab his hidden stash while escaping. Two failures means that he's able to also trigger a set of traps for the party. Three means that he's alerted his guards whom the party will have to encounter prior to continuing. If there are no other consequences, then the party finally finds the trigger and pursues, facing any additional consequences that have been laid out.
Or another way that an active roll could make sense is to determine how much information to give out. To prevent players from thinking that this is a typical roll, have it done with percentile dice or something else so that they won't feel like their feat is being wasted. Or have a table set up to determine the results. Have more tidbits available for those with higher skills.
But, if there is an optional side quest or reward that would be cool for the party to find, that shouldn't be automatically discovered because I walked into a room while sneezing like some kind of Indiana Jones or Lara Croft spidey sense. If the secret door is easy to spot under the right circumstances but difficult to find in others, the best observant/passive perception might net you is something like "cobwebs hang all over the ceilings. A few on the far side seem to be swaying, as if there is a draft". That leaves you to determine whether that draft is important enough to investigate or not. There should also be details that lead to an occasional disappointing discovery, such as mundane objects or perhaps an Easter egg, but not important from a story standpoint or a mechanical standpoint, just so that there is meaning to those times that they investigate instead of pressing on. Not enough to completely dissuade the party from going but enough to make them consider it. This isn't to say that there isn't a payoff from exploring. They know that there are likely more secret passages. Perhaps there has been a cave in at this one, which lets them know that they need to proceed with caution. Maybe a member of the famous party that the group idolizes has carved out something like "Link/Mario/Bilbo/Mary Poppins was here". Perhaps the reference is to a movie that all of you have seen lately. Give the party something for exploring, even if it's not critical to the game per se.
The counter example to finding your keys would be your buddy telling you to find "that square thing that I need for my whatsit". It doesn't matter how important it is that the item is, you probably won't be successful finding it no matter how important it is. There can be items that are hidden in a room that are quite valuable and possibly very important, but if you don't know about it yet, you shouldn't be able to find it just because you are observant.
You could think of it this way. You walk into a new place, restaurant, mall, business complex, or whatever. You are looking around and trying to find where you need to go, where the exits are, where the bathrooms are, who the people are in the place. Someone with the observant feat would be like Jason Bourne, memorizing the license plates in the parking lot, sizing up everyone there of who would be a threat, not leaving his back to a door, scoping out for traps or tripwires. In that respect I can see how passive scores are supposed to be the floor as you are just looking around. I am not as convinced that you can passively make an acrobatic maneuver. I can sit and observe or I can start looking through books and drawers actively. I can't acrobatically flip over a gap between two buildings passively. I tend to use passive investigation and perception as the floor as Crawford discussed which is what those scores are specifically named as having passive (be in the observant feat or on their character sheets they designed). Sometimes insight, but not always, situational, maybe I should use that as a passive all the time as well. The others I just use active checks as to not cheapen reliable talent as a skill, just as not using passive on perception and investigation would nullify a feat that specifically lists them.
I have a character with the observant feat for investigation mostly. I also took a level in rogue to get expertise in that skill. His passive investigation is over 30 as I designed him to be more of a Sherlock Holmes type of character. He only had to roll investigation once during tier 4 for a puzzle as the DC was 35, but traps were easily found and avoided as well as clues easily found. I cleared it all with my DM beforehand and he thought it was a wonderful idea and he had specific encounters based around that and work arounds for his insane investigation. This is why I preach about session 0 and having an open discussion with you players about what they want. Do not be adversarial if they want an observant character or a super weird build. Embrace how they want to play and act accordingly. Everyone wants to be the hero at some point or another in whatever way they see the world through their character's eyes, nurture that. There isn't one talent or spell or build that will break a game unless you aren't prepared or are ready to work around it.
You could think of it this way. You walk into a new place, restaurant, mall, business complex, or whatever. You are looking around and trying to find where you need to go, where the exits are, where the bathrooms are, who the people are in the place. Someone with the observant feat would be like Jason Bourne, memorizing the license plates in the parking lot, sizing up everyone there of who would be a threat, not leaving his back to a door, scoping out for traps or tripwires. In that respect I can see how passive scores are supposed to be the floor as you are just looking around. I am not as convinced that you can passively make an acrobatic maneuver. I can sit and observe or I can start looking through books and drawers actively. I can't acrobatically flip over a gap between two buildings passively. I tend to use passive investigation and perception as the floor as Crawford discussed which is what those scores are specifically named as having passive (be in the observant feat or on their character sheets they designed). Sometimes insight, but not always, situational, maybe I should use that as a passive all the time as well. The others I just use active checks as to not cheapen reliable talent as a skill, just as not using passive on perception and investigation would nullify a feat that specifically lists them.
I have a character with the observant feat for investigation mostly. I also took a level in rogue to get expertise in that skill. His passive investigation is over 30 as I designed him to be more of a Sherlock Holmes type of character. He only had to roll investigation once during tier 4 for a puzzle as the DC was 35, but traps were easily found and avoided as well as clues easily found. I cleared it all with my DM beforehand and he thought it was a wonderful idea and he had specific encounters based around that and work arounds for his insane investigation. This is why I preach about session 0 and having an open discussion with you players about what they want. Do not be adversarial if they want an observant character or a super weird build. Embrace how they want to play and act accordingly. Everyone wants to be the hero at some point or another in whatever way they see the world through their character's eyes, nurture that. There isn't one talent or spell or build that will break a game unless you aren't prepared or are ready to work around it.
Not going to lie.... in groups I play in. Larger than 4. I don’t even bother wasting time with proficiency or anything for perception. Because realistically someone else will already have it, or go super high in it. And I’d rather have my person enjoy the surprise of it. Or have the banter with the char who does notice it.
”trogdor. You don’t know how to read. You can’t tell the difference between a horse and a donkey. (Int of say 6.) but you’re telling me... the second we walked into this room. You noticed this Jigsaw-esque elaborate, peewee Herman excessively long trap. Triggered by something minute that sets off a chain reaction like in the goonies. The second you walked in here.... but it took you 5 tries to figure out how to use a pulley?”
I have my fun like that. Perception is a skill that isn’t used properly due to it being poorly worsened with contradictory information (such as JC vs PhB passive).
do you have problems not being told every time any NPC talks “he’s lying.” “He’s telling the truth” for every single conversation?
or anytime you see someone walking “he seems shady.” “He seems in a hurry” “he seems like he farted too hard and crapped his pants”
because those are the things you’d get from insight checks. We/you are all up in arms and some of us are even demanding everything below our passive perception should be just given to us. But if that’s the case. You have to do it for all the passive checks.
i don’t see the up and arms for the investigation. I don’t see the up in arms for the insight. Just perception. Which is the most vague and generic of those 3 skills.
I have to confess that I don't have much (any?) experience playing with passive skills other than perception. It just hasn't entered my gaming experience. But at the same time, it's obviously the most prominent passive skill by design. After all, it's the only one explicitly mentioned in every monster stat block and on every character sheet. And I can't speak to perception being the vaguest of the skills you mention because I'm not sure I correctly understand what you mean by that.
so, does he think that an observant, raven queen warlock, who is expertise via rogue or prodigy or etc, in perception with their 20 wis and 20 charisma. Does he really think and feel that the rules intend this character has their passive perception of 37?
thats what’s intended? This person literally goes anywhere, and is just omniscient like they are a literal god? If thats the rai. Then reliable talent. Is a waste of a skill. Rogues got to put in 10 level ups of work. To just expand a pre-existing condition for insight, investigation, and perception. To the other skills they have that they are PROFICIENT in. —— BUT WAIT. Passive scores DO NOT require proficiency.
My opinion is that if a player builds their character around having ultra high perception like OboeLauren did, then my job as a responsible DM would be to give some serious consideration on how to run my game while respecting the player to whom that aspect of gameplay is so important. You're talking about picking up multiple feats and potentially multiclassing for the sole purpose of being extremely perceptive. In that situation I need to cater to that focus in my storytelling or else be upfront with the player and tell them they are not going to have fun at my table. I would say this is true for any player who builds their character to strain or exceed bounded accuracy in any aspect of the game.
Perception. 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. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear Monsters moving stealthily in the Forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in Ambushon a road, thugs Hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed Secret door.
“general awareness”
”candlelight under a closed secret door”
you don’t see the secret door. You have a general sense part of the wall seems odd, and requires INVESTIGATION. (Different story of your passive investigation is high enough).
Perception doesn’t make you just know where things are.
whether you Homebrew it as a floor or not. All perception was RAW and RAI designed for, is to give you an idea of what you need to investigate, or what’s going on around you in a general sense.
afterall, seeing candlelight through a crack in the wall doesn’t 100% mean secret door.
Actually, thank you Saga. I should have instead asked you and CC and Yurei how you do use passive scores. That probably would have saved a lot of time.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The way to fix passive perception without it being dumb is to just give traps a hide check -- i.e. the trap has a hide check of +8 (vs passive perception) instead of a DC of 18.
Your opinion, which is fine. I’m going to go with Jeremy Crawford’s explanation of how they should be used as a floor, perception and investigation wise. If your passive isn’t the floor then the Observant feat would be useless and there wouldn’t be any passive scores used ever, which is absolutely RAW incorrect.
When I DM, I use passive for perception and investigation. I have a cheat sheet with my players characters PP and PI scores on them so I don’t have to ask. I agree that having the passives for all skills would cheapen reliable talent which is why I have them roll other skills. Their PP and PI are their floor, the others are just what they roll. If I didn’t do it that way I couldn’t justify Observant or reliable talent being useful.
I mean, we've been over that isn't provided for RAW, and contradicts the "passive = average" thing that is printed, so I don't understand how you're saying that. Call it RAI if you must, but it "flat out" isn't written.
It's not a difference of "opinion." Certain things are written about how this works. Skill floors isn't written. Thus it isn't RAW. That's a fact, jack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A lot of good discussion, but I haven't seen this point... so I'm going to wade in with my claymore.
Perception (and for good measure I'll include investigation and insight) checks are dumb, and I don't like 'em. They stink. (You're mileage may vary)
Didn't need them the first 2 decades or so of D&D. I'm not considering searching for secret doors on a d6 as eligible - that was a specific task. There was some messiness with listen checks which slowed down the fun. But by and large, finding a thing was done in conversation. You said where you looked, and if it was there, bingo you found it. This required detailed description from the DM, with emphasis and tone to help guide the players through voice along. Since then and today, many other rpgs just don't have them (perception checks). Some rpgs actively allow things like perception and investigation like rolls to automatically succeed. And others just tell you the GM to the players what they ask to know. And they still work. Work fine in fact. No perception/investigation/insight roll needed. In fact, the gumshoe system which is all about those three things... just have them succeed. They're too important.
It's a rubbish roll because what is the consequence of failure. Sure, that ambush or trap (but those are passive right?)... and anyway but how often are you using it for that. I mean, its still problematic in those moments, but searching for the watchamacallit in the doohickey, the whatshername down by the whereeveritis - that's where these rolls happen. "Oh no you failed. Pack it up everyone, the plot has ground to a halt, the secret talon of everstar will remain unfound in this drawer..." but no, the DM does back flips and cartwheels and even though it was a 7, reveals just enough to keep the players on track, if not actually just divulging everything anyway. Sigh... just tell them already. Watch Matt, Coleville, Jeremy, Aq.Inc... for what I believe is a typical treatment of this skill. It's all fine and dandy when the player gifts the DM a 21 on the roll, because the DM really wants to impart the information they have embedded in the scene to continue the game. When one of their players flubs with an 11, then that DC20 roll is suddenly a DC10 roll and that info comes out anyway. If you're really good you can alter the result to not be as useful but still be directing. But its the DM who is doing the work here. The dramatic moment isn't whether someone makes a search roll, it's when they follow they bloody slithering tracks down to the basement to... right?
It would be less silly if DMs (at least the many I watch online, or the few I play with) only ask for a roll "after" revealing the obvious, or revealing up to their passive, and then the perception, the investigation, the insight roll only coming in for those last bits of really juicy info - but they usually are asked for right after a player asks a question right up front. "I look around the room what do I see?" Roll perception says the DM. Can you imagine this in the modern workplace? everyone rolling perception all the time to find their coffee mug, to find their desk, to instantly know before any dialogue has occurred what their friend is thinking, to understand the intent of people at the watercooler, to be to find the whiteboard marker in the second drawer of their withdrawn colleague. It's silly. Your response may be, that isn't life and death... you wouldn;t ask for a roll to find the watercooler, and I wouldn't believe you. Put another way that is life and death, pick any action movie... pick game of thrones... look at how many "perception rolls" the characters are making, and how many they are missing. Yes it is fiction, but its fiction our games aspire to. I'd liken perception checks to the old fumble rule where you could decapitate yourself if you rolled a 1, and then a 100 on a percentile with a sword. No one wants their hero to be an idiot.
Back in the day, the DM made these type of rolls for her players. This was a handy arbitrator of allowing chance to dictate "when" (and not if), and to who the DM would spill the beans about the scene. They rolled behind their screen unannounced and the PCs found the gem, noticed the wry smile of the merchant and ran into an ambush if the DM felt the roll was poor (he added the most "observant's" bonuses to that hidden check). I find the passive scores actually more helpful in this regard. I don't have to roll. It's a set DC for opposed skill checks. In fact, I'd prefer it if these obvious detection skills weren't active skills at all. The other incredibly important benefit of the DM knowingand not the player is that the player does not know for sure if what the DM is telling him is actually the truth. This is not at all what happens with an open PC roll. Imagine the PC tailing a suspect. The suspect tries to give him the slip by swapping coats with an accomplice. This is an opposed stealth vs perception. If the player rolls poorly, the swap happens... but the player knows something is up immediately because they rolled low. If I had rolled for them instead, I can instead describe them continuing to follow the same coat until theynaturally get suspicious through my words and in game actions. We lost something when we took away DMs secret rolls. (of couse house rule yadda yadda)
If you're playing sandbox style and are using the player's die results to guide you and your narrative, then the more dice the better. You're feeding off that 13 Investigation to make something up on the spot. It's thrilling, and a legitimate style of play. If you're reading a module that says DC15 Int (investigation) and your player rolled 14, and you've enforced the "no reroll on same check" and "no mass party check"... AND... that module does not describe the consequence of that failure as another narrative branch, the rules have just arbitrarily got into the way of your game because dice. Now you have to either follow that DC and not provide the players the things, or fudge. If you're fudging, then why the roll? If there are no consequences of failure in searching a crowd of people, then why is there a roll?
TLDR: Keep Passives. Ditch actives, unless the DM rolls for you. DMs should just move the plot along and provide the required info.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
What you actually mean is "PCs should automatically notice everything without rolling".
Which I disagree with, but you do have a generally valid point: poring over the dungeon searching for that one secret door that lets you into the next section is obnoxious and boring. If it's really necessary to find something to proceed to the next part of the adventure, either come up with an alternate means of finding the thing, or have the roll determine how long it takes to find the key clue, rather than whether you find it at all.
If there's no particular requirement that the PCs find the thing, though, just let them fail. Lots of things it's fine if they aren't found.
No. PCs should notice exactly as much as the DM deems fit for them to notice in the moment... using any number of mathematical formulae they like (or none at all). Just note... if you the DM decides to tell the players nothing... you're going to have a very ... slow... game.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
So anything that is not explicitly provided for in RAW is a house rule? This is an interesting position. To me, when a DM adjudicates ambiguity or in-between areas in the rules as written, that isn't called making up house rules. That is called being a dungeon master.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I mean, I disagree that it's a superior system generally to let certain things just happen instead of checking everything with a d20... modern D&D since 3 has embraced that and not looked back because it's vastly simpler than all the various systems we had before, and framing everything in the game in terms of a d20 roll really helps players latch on to expectations. But your point about "don't put a pass-or-game-over check in your game unless you mean it" is well taken, and its the number one advice I try to keep in mind when designing stuff. If it's DC 15 to find the secret passage that the bad guy fled down, you better actually have an answer to what the story looks like when no one finds that, and embrace it. Sandbox usually handles this fine, but sometimes the written campaign paths don't keep that in mind which can lead to awkwardness. That's more of a DM/author note for good design than a reason to ditch Perception checks though.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
to have an average you need 2 rolls minimum. Do we need to go down this rabbit hole?
Blank
I'd prefer not to, but since you brought it up, I'll quote the rule right from the PHB. An average in the context of a passive skill doesn't require any rolls at all.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Now. I realize the OP was about specifically passive perception.
but think long and hard here.
do you have problems not being told every time any NPC talks “he’s lying.” “He’s telling the truth” for every single conversation?
or anytime you see someone walking “he seems shady.” “He seems in a hurry” “he seems like he farted too hard and crapped his pants”
because those are the things you’d get from insight checks. We/you are all up in arms and some of us are even demanding everything below our passive perception should be just given to us. But if that’s the case. You have to do it for all the passive checks.
i don’t see the up and arms for the investigation. I don’t see the up in arms for the insight. Just perception. Which is the most vague and generic of those 3 skills.
when I dm, no trap is a perception check unless it’s specifically stated to be a perception check, OR, you know what kind of traps to look for ahead of time.
dont have that Info? Then you’re looking at an investigation trap. As not knowing what kind of traps there are, you wouldn’t know a “general” location they would be set up, so you wouldn’t notice them by “casually looking around” which is what perception is.
as to Jeremy Crawford’s opinion, of the rai. Because that’s what it is.
so, does he think that an observant, raven queen warlock, who is expertise via rogue or prodigy or etc, in perception with their 20 wis and 20 charisma. Does he really think and feel that the rules intend this character has their passive perception of 37?
thats what’s intended? This person literally goes anywhere, and is just omniscient like they are a literal god? If thats the rai. Then reliable talent. Is a waste of a skill. Rogues got to put in 10 level ups of work. To just expand a pre-existing condition for insight, investigation, and perception. To the other skills they have that they are PROFICIENT in. —— BUT WAIT. Passive scores DO NOT require proficiency.
so, a 20 wis, observant person, RAI deserves to reliable talent always have a 20 perception. Without being proficient in it at all. Always have a FLOOR of 20...
but a rogue, with reliable talent and proficiency in perception, can do worse than them, at any given time because their passive is lower. Despite having reliable talent.
and this doesn’t seem ridiculous either?
Blank
Are dice rolls important?
Are all equally important?
Which are the least important?
Which have the least consequence of failure?
Which happen the most?
How often are players rolling, and do they have investment in every roll?
Are the other players leaning forward and also paying attention?
Seeing a failure, what do the other players immediately do? Try to jump on the bandwagon and solve the situation, or collectively groan because something bad is going to happen?
These are playstyle questions. No right and wrong.
I've seen games where dice rolls happen all the time for everything. Failure is you don't get what you want, nothing more. Perception checks are rife, and as such, mean the least for any individual player, cos the next player jumps right in and also tries. Roleplaying, clever wordplay and ideas can (*certainly not guaranteed) take a backseat to "I say nice things to the king" roll persuasion, nat 20. Woohoo! vs... 4 minutes of amazing in character dialogue that stuns everyone at the table... and the DM says no roll required. (again not mutually exclusive... in fact I ask for the roll after the roleplay not before so I can give advantage or wave the need, or shudder... hit with disadvantage, but more importantly to have the roll).
Same with searches and insight checks. Where do you search? What are you looking for from the duke? More directed to involve the player and give me some wiggle room to know how to read the result.
I've also been in games were dice rolls are rare. When they are checked its incredibly important. Failing carries serious narrative consequences. Things will be irrevocably different after this roll. The PC holds onto the die just a little before rolling because... eek!
I strive for the latter (few but important rolls) in all my gaming and try to minimise the former (lots of rolls, but each not that critical). In D&D it is harder than in other systems... because the system likes to roll dice, but it can certainly flex to many play styles.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
This feels like adversarial DMing. Maybe that says more about me...
I have but I always find it eventually :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's an argument for bringing back 3e take 20. Which I probably wouldn't bring back in a formal way, but if I have reason to think the PCs will keep butting their head up against some problem, I'll just ask them how long they're willing to spend on it and if it sounds like enough they find it (of course, I think adventures should have time pressure).
For me, that is the essence of passive perception. I'm usually the one that is called in to find something because I'm pretty observant. But I have my moments where I'm glad that those "keys" weren't a snake.
I liked the descriptions of passives as being the DC for when something else is actively trying to hide or lie to the PC, or perhaps their active part was in the past so I roll to see if their attempts were ultimately successful.
I agree that there shouldn't be a roll if the outcome is critical for the success of the group to the point that the DM fudges the rolls. There shouldn't be a roll there unless there are narrative consequences. If the BBEG has clearly gone through a secret passage, the active perception check may involve finding the trigger. Immediate success means that the party is right on the evil one's heels. One failure means that he's able to grab his hidden stash while escaping. Two failures means that he's able to also trigger a set of traps for the party. Three means that he's alerted his guards whom the party will have to encounter prior to continuing. If there are no other consequences, then the party finally finds the trigger and pursues, facing any additional consequences that have been laid out.
Or another way that an active roll could make sense is to determine how much information to give out. To prevent players from thinking that this is a typical roll, have it done with percentile dice or something else so that they won't feel like their feat is being wasted. Or have a table set up to determine the results. Have more tidbits available for those with higher skills.
But, if there is an optional side quest or reward that would be cool for the party to find, that shouldn't be automatically discovered because I walked into a room while sneezing like some kind of Indiana Jones or Lara Croft spidey sense. If the secret door is easy to spot under the right circumstances but difficult to find in others, the best observant/passive perception might net you is something like "cobwebs hang all over the ceilings. A few on the far side seem to be swaying, as if there is a draft". That leaves you to determine whether that draft is important enough to investigate or not. There should also be details that lead to an occasional disappointing discovery, such as mundane objects or perhaps an Easter egg, but not important from a story standpoint or a mechanical standpoint, just so that there is meaning to those times that they investigate instead of pressing on. Not enough to completely dissuade the party from going but enough to make them consider it. This isn't to say that there isn't a payoff from exploring. They know that there are likely more secret passages. Perhaps there has been a cave in at this one, which lets them know that they need to proceed with caution. Maybe a member of the famous party that the group idolizes has carved out something like "Link/Mario/Bilbo/Mary Poppins was here". Perhaps the reference is to a movie that all of you have seen lately. Give the party something for exploring, even if it's not critical to the game per se.
The counter example to finding your keys would be your buddy telling you to find "that square thing that I need for my whatsit". It doesn't matter how important it is that the item is, you probably won't be successful finding it no matter how important it is. There can be items that are hidden in a room that are quite valuable and possibly very important, but if you don't know about it yet, you shouldn't be able to find it just because you are observant.
You could think of it this way. You walk into a new place, restaurant, mall, business complex, or whatever. You are looking around and trying to find where you need to go, where the exits are, where the bathrooms are, who the people are in the place. Someone with the observant feat would be like Jason Bourne, memorizing the license plates in the parking lot, sizing up everyone there of who would be a threat, not leaving his back to a door, scoping out for traps or tripwires. In that respect I can see how passive scores are supposed to be the floor as you are just looking around. I am not as convinced that you can passively make an acrobatic maneuver. I can sit and observe or I can start looking through books and drawers actively. I can't acrobatically flip over a gap between two buildings passively. I tend to use passive investigation and perception as the floor as Crawford discussed which is what those scores are specifically named as having passive (be in the observant feat or on their character sheets they designed). Sometimes insight, but not always, situational, maybe I should use that as a passive all the time as well. The others I just use active checks as to not cheapen reliable talent as a skill, just as not using passive on perception and investigation would nullify a feat that specifically lists them.
I have a character with the observant feat for investigation mostly. I also took a level in rogue to get expertise in that skill. His passive investigation is over 30 as I designed him to be more of a Sherlock Holmes type of character. He only had to roll investigation once during tier 4 for a puzzle as the DC was 35, but traps were easily found and avoided as well as clues easily found. I cleared it all with my DM beforehand and he thought it was a wonderful idea and he had specific encounters based around that and work arounds for his insane investigation. This is why I preach about session 0 and having an open discussion with you players about what they want. Do not be adversarial if they want an observant character or a super weird build. Embrace how they want to play and act accordingly. Everyone wants to be the hero at some point or another in whatever way they see the world through their character's eyes, nurture that. There isn't one talent or spell or build that will break a game unless you aren't prepared or are ready to work around it.
Not going to lie.... in groups I play in. Larger than 4. I don’t even bother wasting time with proficiency or anything for perception. Because realistically someone else will already have it, or go super high in it. And I’d rather have my person enjoy the surprise of it. Or have the banter with the char who does notice it.
”trogdor. You don’t know how to read. You can’t tell the difference between a horse and a donkey. (Int of say 6.) but you’re telling me... the second we walked into this room. You noticed this Jigsaw-esque elaborate, peewee Herman excessively long trap. Triggered by something minute that sets off a chain reaction like in the goonies. The second you walked in here.... but it took you 5 tries to figure out how to use a pulley?”
I have my fun like that. Perception is a skill that isn’t used properly due to it being poorly worsened with contradictory information (such as JC vs PhB passive).
Blank
I have to confess that I don't have much (any?) experience playing with passive skills other than perception. It just hasn't entered my gaming experience. But at the same time, it's obviously the most prominent passive skill by design. After all, it's the only one explicitly mentioned in every monster stat block and on every character sheet. And I can't speak to perception being the vaguest of the skills you mention because I'm not sure I correctly understand what you mean by that.
My opinion is that if a player builds their character around having ultra high perception like OboeLauren did, then my job as a responsible DM would be to give some serious consideration on how to run my game while respecting the player to whom that aspect of gameplay is so important. You're talking about picking up multiple feats and potentially multiclassing for the sole purpose of being extremely perceptive. In that situation I need to cater to that focus in my storytelling or else be upfront with the player and tell them they are not going to have fun at my table. I would say this is true for any player who builds their character to strain or exceed bounded accuracy in any aspect of the game.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To put the “vagueness” more simply.
Perception. 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. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear Monsters moving stealthily in the Forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in Ambushon a road, thugs Hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed Secret door.
“general awareness”
”candlelight under a closed secret door”
you don’t see the secret door. You have a general sense part of the wall seems odd, and requires INVESTIGATION. (Different story of your passive investigation is high enough).
Perception doesn’t make you just know where things are.
whether you Homebrew it as a floor or not. All perception was RAW and RAI designed for, is to give you an idea of what you need to investigate, or what’s going on around you in a general sense.
afterall, seeing candlelight through a crack in the wall doesn’t 100% mean secret door.
could also mean poor carpentry/masonry.
Blank