Passives

[HolyDraconus]

So with the new update to DnD Beyond, players and Dms alike can see three things in senses, one of which was familiar, one of which was only new if you didn't muck with feats, and one new one. Or, Passive Perception, Passive Investigation, and Passive Insight.

So I ask you fellow forumers, how would you use the two non standard passives? Or have you been using them?

[Finlam]

I always figured that Investigation was an active skill, applying it passively doesn't really make sense to me: that would be Perception.

Insight is closer to the opposite: most of the time it's going to be passive unless a player directly calls for it.

I don't think it will change the way I do anything.

[Lunali]

Passive investigation has been somewhat standard already considering it's one of two skills the observant feat boosts. I wouldn't use it for a most investigations, but if someone is searching a warehouse or some such where they would make multiple checks it makes sense.

[Hawkstar]

To me, the purpose of a "passive" is to serve as a DC for what would otherwise be an opposed check - Passive Perception is the DC to sneak up on someone, for example. Passive Insight is the DC to deceive them.

[Tanarii]

Am I missing something? Any skill can be passive if you make it as a secret check or something done repeatedly. You can make passive athletics, acrobatics or deception checks to continually do something like maintain balance round after round or maintain a deception round after round, if the DM rules that's what is needed.

Passive Investigation is a critical skill for decucing where traps or secret doors are likely to be as you travel down a passageway. That's both a secret check and something done repeatedly

Likewise passive insight is helpful for trying to detect which waiter is the assassin at the ball. (Contrived scenario for this one.)

[Lunali]

Passive Investigation is a critical skill for decucing where traps or secret doors are likely to be as you travel down a passageway. That's both a secret check and something done repeatedly)

Unless the DM is throwing out false alarms where traps would be reasonable but aren't, this should be a perception check.

[Tanarii]

Unless the DM is throwing out false alarms where traps would be reasonable but aren't, this should be a perception check.Some of the example traps in the DMG given show that Investigation check are used to figure out where various components of them are. So passive investigation is fine for traps that use investigation. Of course, many example traps are perception too. :smallamused: Sadly the examples we're given don't seem to follow any sort of rhyme or reason.

Plus the PHB is pretty clear, one of the things Investigation is used to do is "deduce the location of a hidden object".

Personally I generally use the logic of "perception sees something is off" and "investigation figures it out." So you really need both for traps. But the way I run it is passive investigation alone is fine if you're fairly sure there are traps and are searching for them by figuring out where they should be as you go. (Also nothing says they have to be the same character.)

Edit: my theory, based on various little things in the PHB, is that at some point in design it was Passive = Spot and Investigation = Search. Then they decided to make them more generally useful, but now it's not very clear when each should be used. Of course, it never really was for Spot/Search either.

[Lunali]

Edit: my theory, based on various little things in the PHB, is that at some point in design it was Passive = Spot and Investigation = Search. Then they decided to make them more generally useful, but now it's not very clear when each should be used. Of course, it never really was for Spot/Search either.

This is probably correct for the origin of them. I typically consider it as perception is anything you find with your senses, investigation is anything you find by checking likely places for someone to put something.

There is some overlap, but there will typically be radically different DCs. For example, happening to see the lever hidden in the stuffed tiger's mouth might be DC25 perception, figuring out that the tiger's mouth would be a decent place for a lever might be DC 10-15. Also if you're looking for a trap using your sense of touch, there's a good chance you'll trigger it in the process.

[hymer]

IMO, a big problem with using passive skills to, e.g., detect traps, is that the DM sets the difficulty. And so you basically choose whether the PCs find the trap the hard or the nice way, and they will no matter what they do.
I prefer a roll, preferably an open one, so the players can see what's happening, and whether they had luck on their side. And it allows them to use various abilities that affect d20 rolls, and assist each other, or go back and retry if they are getting desperate.

[Tanarii]

The problem with rolls is it either tells the players there is nothing there to find, or that they need to keep rolling.

The problem with rolls is you have to do them over and over again every 5ft. Or whatever.

That's the problem passive checks are designed to fix.

But yes, I do think passive vs a fixed DC has its own problems. Mechanically, it would probably be better if passives were vs a roll+mod. But then you have again the problem that the DM has rolled the dice (which gives away info). Plus with any DM that I'd be willing to sit and play with, that the players can see the result of the roll.

Of course, rolling to find traps is kinda passé. You should be checking to see if they find a clue that there's a problem, right?

[hymer]

You can also fix that problem by having the player roll once as they move down the hall rather than once per five feet - whether there is a trap or not. And make sure you have the roll for stuff other than traps, so they don't feel a need to metagame it whenever you ask for skill checks and they don't immediately know what it was about.

[Tanarii]

You can also fix that problem by having the player roll once as they move down the hall rather than once per five feet - whether there is a trap or not. And make sure you have the roll for stuff other than traps, so they don't feel a need to metagame it whenever you ask for skill checks and they don't immediately know what it was about.
They still knows they rolled poorly, and can stop and try again.

Of course, you could just ask each player to use a roller and generate a list of 100 numbers in advance. Or do it yourself and use that. But if you're doing that, you might as well use them + modifier to compare to player's passive scores in the first place, as I suggested.

[mephnick]

IMO, a big problem with using passive skills to, e.g., detect traps, is that the DM sets the difficulty. And so you basically choose whether the PCs find the trap the hard or the nice way, and they will no matter what they do.


I give every trap a "hidden" modifier and roll to determine it's DC, no different from Stealth vs Perception.

[Brightersidegam]

I made a thread, not long ago, asking about passive perception that also had done discussion about other passive skills. It might finally be on the third page now, though.

Honestly, I feel like they could be used a few ways. I do like the "always on" method of passive skills, where a roll is to see if you just get higher then your passive skill.

Still, there are those two, non-perception skills, that now are passive, how do you justify them? Insight is easy, you can tell if someone is BSing you just by talking with them. It makes insight more of a save DC rather then a skill check, but you can still actively to against someone if you're suspicious.

Investigation is a little bit trickier to explain, but I find it's best as a "discover clues at a glance" kind of thing. Yea, you notice the book case has a LOT of books on it (passive perception), most of them about spell casting, or magical theories, or other wizardy stuff (passive investigation), two in particular seem out of place to you (higher passive investigation), like their places have been switched for some reason (passive investigation with the observant feat)

As always, it is best to talk to your DM/players to make sure everyone is on the same page on how passive skills work in your game. How I think of them is different from the next guys, so opinions vary.

[Finger6842]

This is one of those questions that bothers me as a player. You want me to adventure, to risk my life in a tomb somewhere and yet you will say I need to actively tell you i'm looking for traps? Bad news, despite opinions to the contrary, anyone who is risking their life is by default paying attention (unless distracted by events) and will OF COURSE be looking for traps, treasures, writings, spaces that don't feel right, etc.

As a player I also will not randomly go to the Temple of Doom unless i've seen/heard some kind of intelligence that indicates there is profit in it. That profit might be hero status or an ancient tome indicating there's a xx item of wonderous power on site but i'm not doing it because i'm bored and any attempt to railroad or coerce me into it makes the story really bad (for me). I should also point out that our DM often gives us intelligence and once in a great while we find what we expect but mostly we just find another clue. Thats why he's the best DM :P

So yes, I am at all times passively performing every skill at my disposal. Now if i don't have the skill that's another story.

[Lunali]

This is one of those questions that bothers me as a player. You want me to adventure, to risk my life in a tomb somewhere and yet you will say I need to actively tell you i'm looking for traps? Bad news, despite opinions to the contrary, anyone who is risking their life is by default paying attention (unless distracted by events) and will OF COURSE be looking for traps, treasures, writings, spaces that don't feel right, etc.

As a player I also will not randomly go to the Temple of Doom unless i've seen/heard some kind of intelligence that indicates there is profit in it. That profit might be hero status or an ancient tome indicating there's a xx item of wonderous power on site but i'm not doing it because i'm bored and any attempt to railroad or coerce me into it makes the story really bad (for me). I should also point out that our DM often gives us intelligence and once in a great while we find what we expect but mostly we just find another clue. Thats why he's the best DM :P

So yes, I am at all times passively performing every skill at my disposal. Now if i don't have the skill that's another story.

The downside of looking for traps is that you have to take more time to do it. If time isn't an issue, that's fine, but a good DM will find ways to make it relevant somehow.

[Malifice]

Some of the example traps in the DMG given show that Investigation check are used to figure out where various components of them are. So passive investigation is fine for traps that use investigation. Of course, many example traps are perception too. :smallamused: Sadly the examples we're given don't seem to follow any sort of rhyme or reason.

Plus the PHB is pretty clear, one of the things Investigation is used to do is "deduce the location of a hidden object".

Deduce it from clues that you have already noticed.

For example, you notice footprints that lead towards a wall and then vanish. A DC 10 Intelligence [investigation] check deduces that there is a secret door there.

Its a Wisdon [Perception] check to notice the footprints in the first place.

Personally I hate those skills. Id much rather use Perception for passive floor ONLY, and use Investigation when you're actively searching for something.

[hymer]

They still knows they rolled poorly, and can stop and try again.
Let me try to give an example of what I mean. The party has chosen to go down a 40' by 10' hallway with a door at the end. They are going in their usual marching order: the rogue up front looking for traps, and the main tank right behind, everyone stepping only where the rogue has been.

Rogue player: "I'll look for traps in front of me as I go down the hall, and then look for traps on the door."
DM: "Okay, show me the route you intend." [Rogue player does so] "Right. Roll Perception, and then Investigation."
Rogue player: "Perception 14, Investigation 9."
DM: "Okay, when you get to here, you notice a trapdoor in the floor in front of you, as wide as the hall. You can't see a way to dimantle it right off, but you can spring it if you like. You don't know how far you'd have to jump to get over the door [because they rolled 9 on Investigation]."

If the Perception check had been flunked, the rogue would have had to try to avoid falling in - a high Investigation check could have given advantage on this check/save. If the Investigation check had been 12+ like the Perception check, they would know more about the trap - exactly how big it is, and if there is a way to prevent it from opening while standing on it, e.g.


I give every trap a "hidden" modifier and roll to determine it's DC, no different from Stealth vs Perception.
That makes a lot of sense. I just wish the players would be the ones rolling the dice, so they could use things like Inspiration if they wanted to.

[Tanarii]

If the Perception check had been flunked, the rogue would have had to try to avoid falling in - a high Investigation check could have given advantage on this check/save. If the Investigation check had been 12+ like the Perception check, they would know more about the trap - exactly how big it is, and if there is a way to prevent it from opening while standing on it, e.g.
What you've done is created unnecessary metagaming. The playe now knows they rolled a 9, and either has to pretend they don't know they got a middling roll and move forward, change their mind about what they are doing, or look fo a way to get the DM to allow them to make a reroll.

Edit: it's not some big problem mechanically to do it that way though. Just in terms of what it does to player decision making.

[hymer]

What you've done is created unnecessary metagaming. The playe now knows they rolled a 9, and either has to pretend they don't know they got a middling roll and move forward, change their mind about what they are doing, or look fo a way to get the DM to allow them to make a reroll.

Edit: it's not some big problem mechanically to do it that way though. Just in terms of what it does to player decision making.

In the example of play I cited above, where did the player have the option of metagaming?

[Tanarii]

In the example of play I cited above, where did the player have the option of metagaming?
Oops, my bad. You are absolutely correct, when used after the decisions have been made, as per your example, there is no metagame problem.

In fact, your example pretty much matches exactly the way rolled ability checks can work for single checks for a longer periods of time. Charisma checks work that way too, in the DMG method.

[DarkKnightJin]

In a one-shot I ran the other day, I made a little 'cheat sheet' with the PC's AC and passive Perception score.
I found some of them walking into a room and grabbing their d20. Asking me if they could roll Perception on what they saw.
I just told them what their character would see.
And stated that I wanted to tell me what their character was doing. If and when an ability check os needed, that I'd ask them to roll it.

The first half hour was a bit rocky, but then they got into the groove, and allowed me to describe the rooms they entered, without interrupting me to ask for a Perception check.

I also dropped a hint that the final 'boss' NPC would have a passive Insight of about 17, so they should think long and hard about trying to deceive him.

Then again, I also told them that of they RP out their characters properly, they might not even have to roll for a success.
Just like how some things don't get a roll because there's no chance of success, even with the rare crit success.. sometimes things just have no realistice chance of failing.
I want to reward proper IC rolepaying from my players.