Some thoughts on Perception vs. Investigation Skills in D&D 5E

[acemcjack]

I know this has been discussed before, but I've been thinking a lot about the overuse of the Perception skill in 5th Edition.

Perception is often viewed as the go-to skill of 5th edition of D&D. Whenever you’re looking for traps, secret doors, treasure, ambushes, or someone stalking you, the DM will usually call for a Wisdom (Perception) roll.
And why not? It makes sense (pun intended). To find something that is hidden from you, you need to use your senses. Right?
I would like to propose a different view, which also helps solve another issue with this edition, in which most characters (except Wizards and some subclasses) tend to dump Intelligence.

One of the problems that arises from using perception for almost everything, stems from Passive Perception. Often, a DM will roll against the characters’ Passive Perception score whenever he doesn’t want them to know that something is amiss, such as an ambush they might notice, or some clue or another that advances the story.
But it doesn’t always make sense. Traps and secret doors are, in their nature, hidden from sight.
You’re not supposed to notice them at a passing glance, and even if you’re very perceptive, you aren’t supposed to be able to see a trap without looking for one specifically.
Furthermore, Like in the famous Selective Awareness experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo), when you are busy focusing on something else, even a (WARNING, SPOILER) *BEAR* passing by in plain sight at the center of your field of vision, might be missed.

And even if you are actively looking for traps and notice that something’s not right, who’s to say that you actually understand that what you’re seeing is a trap or a door?
I propose, that to actually find a trap or a secret door, you don’t need to just be able to spot it with your senses, you actually need to actively search for it, or, as you probably guessed by now, you have to use the Investigation skill.

“But”, you might argue, “you still have to actually see the trap or the door to be able to investigate it properly, right?” I argue that no. I mean, yes, you have to see it, obviously, but it’s enough to not be blind, if you’re searching for something methodically enough, and that requires intelligence more than it does keen senses (= wisdom).
We have a few other examples of skills that are used for finding or determining things, that technically all require using your senses, yet few people would claim that you should use the Perception skill for these cases: Tracking (uses the Survival Skill), gathering information at a bar or doing research at a library or archive (uses Investigation, though I would argue that this should be done with knowledge checks, because in order to research something, you need to be somewhat knowledgeable in it), Determining whether someone is trying to decieve you (Insight vs. Deception), etc. All are examples for things that you first need to use your senses to actually be able to do properly, yet we use other skills to do them (and rightly so). Otherwise, there would be no need to be proficient in hardly any other skill.

So how do you differentiate between using perception to find something and using Investigation to find something? The key, IMO, is passive perception. Because, mechanically, passive perception makes more sense against opposed checks, such as Stealth checks, and not vs. fixed DCs, I propose that ACTIVE Perception should also be used for opposed checks, only in cases where the character is actively trying to spot or hear something or someone who needs to actively try to hide from you. Let’s be frank, if no one is rolling any dice to determine the success of a certain action which technically could fail, it makes for a dull system, and not very much in tune with the basics of D&D.
Now, I know there is in fact such a thing as Passive Investigation in 5th Edition, but I don’t know anyone who’s ever used it, and I can’t really imagine a situation where it would come up.
Also, at the DM’s discretion, Perception (probably Passive) could be used by the DM to give general clues and information perceived by the character, but such that don’t necessarily reveal the nature of what he sees (For example, you spot a small notch in the wall, or hear a ticking sound), in which case the character would have to investigate to be able to determine what it is that he actually saw or heard.

As noted, the division between Perception and Investigation and their uses, makes Perception a little less essential for all characters, and makes Intelligence less of a dump stat, if you want to be able to find traps and secret doors. With this proposed change, Barbarians, Rangers and Clerics don’t have as much of an advantage at finding traps as Rogues (at least not at earlier levels, before expertise really kicks in, assuming you take it for Perception. And who wouldn’t?).

One caveat is the Wizard, who has very high intelligence, and thus would be good at finding traps and secret doors, but there are few points that mitigate this: First, most wizards are squishy as hell, so I don’t imagine they would be the first choice for trapfinding at any party. Second, Wizards don’t have a lot of skill points to spend, and as mentioned above, if they want to be able to research stuff, I think they should focus on Knowledge skills more than Investigation. Third, especially at higher levels, a party is going to run into more and more magical traps and secret doors, in which case, it would make sense that a wizard would know about this stuff more than other classes (besides the Rogue, of course).

So to sum up:

Wisdom (Perception) (Active or Passive) should be used to spot ambushes, someone stalking you, and other things that require opposed Stealth rolls. Or, things that you use your senses to see or hear, which aren’t hidden by their very nature (see a object at a great distance, hear guards approaching etc.), or general clues that don’t reveal the nature of the actual thing hidden.
Intelligence (Investigation) should be used to find traps, secret doors, gather information and other stuff that require passing a fixed DC, in which case there is no passive check to determine success.


That’s my take on this subject. What do you think?

[Trustypeaches]

Or you can just roll against the characters Passive Investigation instead of their Passive Perception.

[acemcjack]

Please explain.

[Trustypeaches]

Please explain.
There are "passive" stats for every single skill.

Instead of checking against Passive Perception to see if players notice a trap, just check against the player's Passive Investigation to see if they notice it. You could either roll "stealth" for the trap or just assign it a flat value (possibly augmented by circumstances, such as the party being distracted).

You can do this with every single skill in the game. For certain social situations, someone might be able to sniff out a liar with their high Passive Insight. Or a moderate climb might not require a roll for someone with high Passive Athletics.

[Chronos]

I agree with you that that makes more sense, but unfortunately, the rules are quite clear that finding a trap is Perception, not Investigation. Also unfortunately, the rules in question are in the DMG, not the Player's Handbook, so a player is likely to assume that it works the way that makes sense, and get bit in the butt when the Investigation skill they invested in turns out to be useless.

On another note, passive perception is also a problem, in that it's better than active perception. In previous editions, taking 10 on a skill was something that you only got to do under certain circumstances, either because you were in a low-stress situation where you could be careful, or because you devoted build resources to being consistently good at skills. Now, though, the circumstances under which you can take 10 (at least on perception) is that you're not paying attention. When you're more likely to find something by not looking for it than by looking for it, something's wrong.

[XmonkTad]

So to sum up:

Wisdom (Perception) (Active or Passive) should be used to spot ambushes, someone stalking you, and other things that require opposed Stealth rolls. Or, things that you use your senses to see or hear, which aren’t hidden by their very nature (see a object at a great distance, hear guards approaching etc.), or general clues that don’t reveal the nature of the actual thing hidden.
Intelligence (Investigation) should be used to find traps, secret doors, gather information and other stuff that require passing a fixed DC, in which case there is no passive check to determine success.


I think that's a pretty fair summary, and for the sake of making perception less dominant I would definitely keep these in mind. Furthermore, there are a bunch of uses pointed out in the PHB for investigation that I don't feel like come up that often because it's usually one of the stupider characters coming up with the plan (ie. The wizard isn't the one asking where the weak-point that will collapse the cave they're in is).

I blame BBEGs for not leaving enough clues in the form of cyphers and ancient scrolls. Of course, that gets back to the "can I roll intelligence to solve a puzzle" argument.

I would also specify that "gather information" is the "not-from-a-person" type. Gathering information from a tapestry depicting historical events: investigation. Gathering information from the tavern rabble with bad Cockney accents: charisma something.

[Pelle]

Passives are used for tasks you do repeatedly, and don't want to bother decalaring again and again, as well as things the DM checks in secret of course. So the difference in how much the skills are used either actively or passives depend a lot and what is the defauly assumptions of what the characters are doing, without needing to specify it.

For my games, everyone are expected to use their senses constantly, so Passive Perception is used a lot to notice stuff without having to roll for it. It is not assumed that characters are searching for traps etc without the player announcing it. Therefor, when doing Int(Investigation) checks, they tend to be active because the player describes how the character is acting and manipulating the environment.

You can have active perception if the player is declaring they are looking for something specific, or you can have passive investigation if the players declare that they will search every room they enter for secret stuff.

[Mehangel]

It should be noted that passive investigation is explicitly mentioned in the player's handbook (see observant feat).

Another common use for the investigation skill that cannot normally be done with perception includes identifying illusions.

[acemcjack]

Passives are used for tasks you do repeatedly, and don't want to bother decalaring again and again, as well as things the DM checks in secret of course. So the difference in how much the skills are used either actively or passives depend a lot and what is the defauly assumptions of what the characters are doing, without needing to specify it.

For my games, everyone are expected to use their senses constantly, so Passive Perception is used a lot to notice stuff without having to roll for it. It is not assumed that characters are searching for traps etc without the player announcing it. Therefor, when doing Int(Investigation) checks, they tend to be active because the player describes how the character is acting and manipulating the environment..
That's an interesting definition of using a skill passively. I'm not sure I would use that term for this. In previous versions you would simply declare you are taking 10 or 20, depending on the situation.
I see passive perception (or other passive usage of skills) as something that happens without your choice (unless you actively try NOT to do it). That's why it makes sense for Perception or knowledge checks, or even Insight. I don't understand how it would work for Investigation or Athletics checks. Some skills are inherently active and cannot be used passively IMO.


It should be noted that passive investigation is explicitly mentioned in the player's handbook (see observant feat).

Another common use for the investigation skill that cannot normally be done with perception includes identifying illusions.
I'm aware it's in the rules. I just don't understand how you passively investigate something (unless your name is Dirk Gently or something 😉).

Identifying illusions is, indeed, another usage for the Investigation skill, and rightly so. Though one could argue you need to use your senses to notice it just like with traps.

[Dark Schneider]

I think that has already been taken into account in rules. In fact, in DMG there are some trap examples using INT (Investigation) instead WIS (Perception). So probably is something more situation related than using something specific.

If you see a wire crossing in front of you, no need to be a Sherlock Holmes to identify as a trap. For more elaborated traps, like described on DMG, you probably need more reason than perception, and that's why they use INT (Investigation).

Then the trap, or better the situation (to be more generic), would indicate which one to use.

I suppose the main problem is that most (if not all) of the generated adventures use Perception for all traps. But if you feel it does not fits with your POV of some traps, you could perfectly change some of them into INT (Investigation) checks. From your POV, I think it would be appropriate that natural or simple traps use Perception, and complex traps use Investigation.

By default, I think some secret doors or looking for hidden things use Investigation. If not, the same than with traps, modify if you think is fine. Some will require to perceive them, and others will require reasoning.

And the same for all the other stuff related with Perception and Investigation.

Investigation can be used to other things too, like Research, very useful, identify illusions, look for buyers to sell magical items, and probably some others I'd not remember.

As note, we use Investigation on each session.

[sophontteks]

Traps are naturally going to be very difficult to spot. A good trap would be nearly invisible to the naked eye. But the presence of a trap can often be deduced by other factors.

For example, lets say there is a basic pittrap covered by foliage. You can use your passive perception to spot foliage, which isn't very helpful. You can use passive investigation to notice that this foliage is assembled in an unnatural manner and the ground around it is strangely bare.

What about a spring trap? Are you going to spot the clear, thin string? Or are you going to notice that the tree beside it is bent and deduce that this is not natural?

[acemcjack]

I think that has already been taken into account in rules. In fact, in DMG there are some trap examples using INT (Investigation) instead WIS (Perception). So probably is something more situation related than using something specific.

If you see a wire crossing in front of you, no need to be a Sherlock Holmes to identify as a trap. For more elaborated traps, like described on DMG, you probably need more reason than perception, and that's why they use INT (Investigation).

Then the trap, or better the situation (to be more generic), would indicate which one to use.

I suppose the main problem is that most (if not all) of the generated adventures use Perception for all traps. But if you feel it does not fits with your POV of some traps, you could perfectly change some of them into INT (Investigation) checks. From your POV, I think it would be appropriate that natural or simple traps use Perception, and complex traps use Investigation.

By default, I think some secret doors or looking for hidden things use Investigation. If not, the same than with traps, modify if you think is fine.

And the same for all the other stuff related with Perception and Investigation.

Investigation can be used to other things too, like Research, very useful, identify illusions, look for buyers to sell magical items, and probably some others I'd not remember.

As note, we use Investigation on each session.
That's a pretty good distinction. If it's in plain sight, you might indeed simply notice it with your senses. Though in some cases you would still need to investigate to learn the nature of the trap.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with you that that makes more sense, but unfortunately, the rules are quite clear that finding a trap is Perception, not Investigation. Also unfortunately, the rules in question are in the DMG, not the Player's Handbook, so a player is likely to assume that it works the way that makes sense, and get bit in the butt when the Investigation skill they invested in turns out to be useless.


That's actually not correct. Realizing that something is wrong (that tile looks different) is Wisdom (Perception), but figuring out anything else is Intelligence (Investigation).

In general, trap-finding falls into one of a few categories:

1) Traps that rely entirely on obscurity (Perception only). If you see them, you bypass them. These are boring. Use them only as part of another encounter. Example: Open pit trap.

2) Traps that can be disabled if detected (Perception + Investigation). Knowing that they're there is part of the issue, but then you have to figure out how they work so you can disable them (with more than just a "I roll Thieves' Tools at it" check. Here, Wisdom (Perception) tells you that there's something wrong and gives clues and Intelligence (Investigation) puts those clues together. Raw Perception doesn't help you if there are 3 wires and only one of them disarms the trap.

3) Complex traps that activate regardless and require other actions to end. These may involve neither Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation), although they may involve both and other skills besides. These are their own encounter.

The point being that raw "oops you didn't push every tile with a 10' pole, you take X damage" traps are bad design for anything other than OSR dungeon crawls. They encourage pixel-hunting and waste lots of time. Oh, and they're very susceptible to summoned-creature trap-sweeping. I'd rather not have traps at all if those are the only ones available. For interesting traps, Wisdom (Perception) only gets you a small fraction of the way there.

[OvisCaedo]

It often feels like a lot of players have better defined ideas than the game itself presents them, and perhaps more than any of the actual official adventure designers do. I remember checking through the book a while back for ToA after I suffered through that campaign, and I believe the campaign as a whole had... either three or four officially suggested investigation checks? One was for noticing that a guy might be living in a tree trunk or something, and two were at the very end of the massive trap and riddle filled dungeon, and were extremely high DC checks to notice trap runes on two doors. Everything else relating to any of the traps was just perception.

[sophontteks]

Its not bad to have skill overlap anyway. I'd often allow either skill to work, depending on which is better for the player, when there is no clear right answer.

[Dark Schneider]

2) Traps that can be disabled if detected (Perception + Investigation). Knowing that they're there is part of the issue, but then you have to figure out how they work so you can disable them (with more than just a "I roll Thieves' Tools at it" check. Here, Wisdom (Perception) tells you that there's something wrong and gives clues and Intelligence (Investigation) puts those clues together. Raw Perception doesn't help you if there are 3 wires and only one of them disarms the trap.

That's a nice point.


Its not bad to have skill overlap anyway. I'd often allow either skill to work, depending on which is better for the player, when there is no clear right answer.
Too. If full overlap does not fit, simply set one main, depending of the nature, and the secondary one increase a degree the difficulty (+5 to DC).

[Pelle]

That's an interesting definition of using a skill passively. I'm not sure I would use that term for this. In previous versions you would simply declare you are taking 10 or 20, depending on the situation.
I see passive perception (or other passive usage of skills) as something that happens without your choice (unless you actively try NOT to do it). That's why it makes sense for Perception or knowledge checks, or even Insight. I don't understand how it would work for Investigation or Athletics checks. Some skills are inherently active and cannot be used passively IMO.


Interesting or not, that is explicitly what the rules say passive checks are. It's not about if the character does something actively or passively, although that would be more intuitive. The reason why passive perception happens so much, is not because it happens without your choice, but because you do it over and over (without mentioning it). Although it turns out to the same.

So just say that you are going to check for ... as a default, and the DM can choose to use passive investigation for that.


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 GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another important thing most often missed when skills come up is that there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks that may include one of a set of skill proficiencies.

Finding the existence of a trap is generally a Wisdom check, but can also be an Intelligence check. Usually, if you used Wisdom you can probably add Perception proficiency if you have it; Intelligence and Investigation go together as well. But if someone suggests that they use Intelligence (Arcana) to find/understand a suspected magical trap and can explain why they think that should help, the DMG says to let them.

The ability is relatively fixed, but the proficiency can be a bunch of things. They're lumped with certain ability scores because those are the common uses, but you can roll Wisdom (Arcana) or Intelligence (Perception) just as well. The point is, be flexible and treat the suggested checks as just that--suggestions. Don't try to cheat your players out of using proficiency just because you have a different mental model of the situation than they do. Task resolution in 5e (like most things) is a conversation, even though that conversation is usually limited because the "right" answer is obvious to both parties.

[Pex]

It's easier for me to think of it in 3E terms. Investigation is Search. Perception is Spot. It does mean using Investigation to search for traps instead of Perception like the book says, but I tell my players that especially rogues. Unfortunately DMs I've played with aren't consistent between them and within the campaign. It gets annoying when one DM uses Investigation while another DM uses Perception for the same task and more so when the DM uses one then the other a few game sessions later. It's not every DM I play with for the latter, but it's not only one. The rules try to make a distinction between the two skills, but for whatever reason it doesn't click.

[acemcjack]

Interesting or not, that is explicitly what the rules say passive checks are. It's not about if the character does something actively or passively, although that would be more intuitive. The reason why passive perception happens so much, is not because it happens without your choice, but because you do it over and over (without mentioning it). Although it turns out to the same.

So just say that you are going to check for ... as a default, and the DM can choose to use passive investigation for that.


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 GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster
I stand corrected. Though I don't agree with this design choice. In any case I don't think it should apply to traps, since this is a life threatening situation, and if the average represents a wide range of rolls, some of them are bound to have been low, and should result in springing the trap somehow.

[acemcjack]

Another important thing most often missed when skills come up is that there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks that may include one of a set of skill proficiencies.

Finding the existence of a trap is generally a Wisdom check, but can also be an Intelligence check. Usually, if you used Wisdom you can probably add Perception proficiency if you have it; Intelligence and Investigation go together as well. But if someone suggests that they use Intelligence (Arcana) to find/understand a suspected magical trap and can explain why they think that should help, the DMG says to let them.

The ability is relatively fixed, but the proficiency can be a bunch of things. They're lumped with certain ability scores because those are the common uses, but you can roll Wisdom (Arcana) or Intelligence (Perception) just as well. The point is, be flexible and treat the suggested checks as just that--suggestions. Don't try to cheat your players out of using proficiency just because you have a different mental model of the situation than they do. Task resolution in 5e (like most things) is a conversation, even though that conversation is usually limited because the "right" answer is obvious to both parties.

Excellent points!
I would also propose that, depending on the ability and skill you are using, the information you might obtain will be different.
If you use perception and succeed in the check, you get information on what the trap looks like. If you use investigation, you get information on how it works.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Excellent points!
I would also propose that, depending on the ability and skill you are using, the information you might obtain will be different.
If you use perception and succeed in the check, you get information on what the trap looks like. If you use investigation, you get information on how it works.

I apply this more broadly--I'll give different information if they use Arcana, Nature, or History to identify a creature. Similar things apply to other skills in different contexts. That avoids the "I don't have that skill" sadness and lets different approaches work...but differently.

[HappyDaze]

Traps are naturally going to be very difficult to spot. A good trap would be nearly invisible to the naked eye. But the presence of a trap can often be deduced by other factors.
Some good traps might be intended to be obvious. These are less the "gothcha" type of trap and more of the deterrent and area-denial. Some of them might even be bluffs (false traps). These types of things don't require Perception to locate, but Investigation might let you piece together that they are not what they seem.

[Marcloure]

I'll reiterate that skill checks in 5E have a different streamline. The DM should only bother to define what ability should be used, some traps challenge your Wisdom, some your Intelligence, some your Strength who knows. Then, if a character is proficienty in a field related to the challenge (ie.: in spoting things, in arcane knowledge, in survivability, etc) they add their proficiency bonus.

So, when you design a trap, you should think: "this trap requires a character to spot it with its intuition and senses, its Wisdom". When the player check to find the trap, it might say "hey, I'm an investigator, I'm good at this stuff. Can I add my proficiency in this test?", and then the DM judges an yes or no.

The thing is, the DM must arbitrarily decide if a proficiency is related or not to that challenge, and that is something we usuallly don't like to do. Apparently WotC also don't like their own design, because, although they say in the book what I said, they more than once also say "the character makes an Intelligence (Investigation) check", which presumably means those character can't use any other proficinecy in place.

[Pleh]

I apply this more broadly--I'll give different information if they use Arcana, Nature, or History to identify a creature. Similar things apply to other skills in different contexts. That avoids the "I don't have that skill" sadness and lets different approaches work...but differently.

You can take this further by having the players be the ones to declare which stat and skill proficiency they want to attempt to use and how they expect it to work, only offering your suggestions when they aren't sure.

"I use a Dex (Perception) check to search for traps, tumbling through the space to trigger it without getting caught in it."

"... you successfully find the Pit Trap... and fall inside."

Let them sort out their risk vs reward on tactical choice of abilities used.

[Tanarii]

If you can spot something, it's perception. If you have to figure out where something is or how it works, it's investigation.

Passive vs non passive depends on if the PC is doing something repeatedly (walking down a hallway looking for threats and traps) or doing it just once (checking a chest or door or part of a room once). It has nothing to do with if a PC is active or passive, as the PHB makes clear.

And of course if you have all the time, you can take ten times as long and automatically succeed (checking a chest or door or part of a room out of combat with no time pressure).

I tend to mostly use passive investigation to figure out there is a trap, IMO it's the nuts and bolts skill of a trap-finder. Passive perception might let you notice something that you (the player) can then reasonably deduce is a trap with that information. The sample traps mostly hold this up.

[Dark Schneider]

If you can spot something, it's perception. If you have to figure out where something is or how it works, it's investigation.

Passive vs non passive depends on if the PC is doing something repeatedly (walking down a hallway looking for threats and traps) or doing it just once (checking a chest or door or part of a room once). It has nothing to do with if a PC is active or passive, as the PHB makes clear.

And of course if you have all the time, you can take ten times as long and automatically succeed (checking a chest or door or part of a room out of combat with no time pressure).

I tend to mostly use passive investigation to figure out there is a trap, IMO it's the nuts and bolts skill of a trap-finder. Passive perception might let you notice something that you (the player) can then reasonably deduce is a trap with that information. The sample traps mostly hold this up.
Well some passive uses are really for standing passive, like when comparing Stealth vs Passive Perception while not looking for someone actively.

Noooo auto-success nooo :D

The problem is that are the traps at DMG, as it was released some later they probably noticed that should be the way. But published adventures usually takes the PHB behaviour, that is using Perception. If someone remembers a trap in a published adventure using Investigation could mention here. Because that, I propose that if you feel it fits better in another way, change tehm to INT (Investigation) traps.

[Tanarii]

Well some passive uses are really for standing passive, like when comparing Stealth vs Passive Perception while not looking for someone actively.Thats not for standing passive. You're actively looking for threats over and over again from round to round. The assumption is just that creatures in dangerous environments are looking for threats.

If you're busy doing something else (e.g. Foraging, Mapping, Navigating, Mapping) you don't get to use your passive perception, because you're not actively looking for threats.

[Pelle]

I stand corrected. Though I don't agree with this design choice. In any case I don't think it should apply to traps, since this is a life threatening situation, and if the average represents a wide range of rolls, some of them are bound to have been low, and should result in springing the trap somehow.

The thing to remember is that passive checks are a GM tool. It's not players saying they take 10 to get the average. Players are supposed to describe what their character is doing, and then the GM judges if they should call for a check, which ability is appropriate etc. Using passives is not required, you decide if it's beneficial for the game experience or not.

For me, a scary trap is a dramatic situation, and if either failing or succeeding in the check will reveal it, then it's better to roll actively because that's more dramatic. If I don't want to reveal the presence of the trap, I can do a passive check instead, either rolling for the trap itself or just compare to a DC if it's not very consequential.

[Pelle]

If you have trouble deciding on Wis or Int checks, this can be a useful metric:

Wis (Perception) lets you see a door partly open, with an anvil balanced on top of it.
Int (Investigation?) lets you realize that it's a trap that will drop the anvil on your head if you open the door.

Depending on the nature of the trap, these skills will have variable utility.

[Dark Schneider]

Thats not for standing passive. You're actively looking for threats over and over again from round to round. The assumption is just that creatures in dangerous environments are looking for threats.

If you're busy doing something else (e.g. Foraging, Mapping, Navigating, Mapping) you don't get to use your passive perception, because you're not actively looking for threats.
I have seen in some adventure something like "players could notice that ... if Passive Perception DC 15, if they search they must succeed on a WIS (Perception) check DC 10".
It could be used simply to check if you notice something even not looking for it, let's say by default. It is not rare. In the case of doing other things, well your attention is used in another task.

Also, if active use, I would never use Passive against another fixed value. That creates tiers to succeed. I.e. using Passive when looking for traps actively, if you have PP 15, you can find automatically traps with DC15, but you will never notice any DC20 until you get PP20, that is not good at all IMO.
When players mention they are looking for something, like traps, I do a hidden roll and use it for the whole situation (the corridor, the room, etc.), I roll if there is a trap or not, so they don't know about the presence of any, I simply say them if they detect something or not.
Characters bonus should be increasing probabilities of success, and using passive against another "passive" (fixed value like a DC) is not working like should be.
In the case of Stealth vs PP, there is no problem as the Stealth is a roll, so probability is taken into account. Making another roll for Perception would not change anything as have the same probability to roll any value, so getting a 10 (average) is the same.

In the first case, what I do is if players are not agree with the info they get, and say they do a 2nd try, then I use passive because is their average, and in this case is a repeat. Useful if they think the hidden roll was under 10. A Rogue at certain level will not need to check again when they auto-roll 10 if rolling lesser than 10.

[Whit]

I agree with the fact that perception is WAY to broadly used as the catch all for observing everything, which makes it one of the top major skills to get and for the double proficiency class a whopping I never miss anything the dm has coming.

[Chronos]

Making another roll for Perception would not change anything as have the same probability to roll any value, so getting a 10 (average) is the same.
This is not true. The fewer rolls you have, the better it is for the player with the better odds. In the extreme case, where one contestant is much better than the other, the only way they can fail is if they roll low and their opponent rolls high, which isn't possible at all when there's only one roll. But even in less extreme cases, the second roll still matters.

[Tanarii]

The thing to remember is that passive checks are a GM tool.Indeed. Specifically, it's a tool for either:
-situations when the player would have to roll over and over again, like moving along looking for enemies and traps and secret doors
- situations where the player doesn't even know if there's anything there to check against, and see the roll result would give situation away, like looking for enemies and traps and secret doors.

Checking for secret / hidden creatures or things over and over again when you don't know if thre is something there is the entire reason they had to invent passive checks. It's necessary for both reasons. They just generalized the rule and gave it a poor name. Since the Passive in passive checks means: the player doesn't roll a die. the PHB explicitly says that's what it means.

And yet despite the PHB being explicit, people often mistakenly think, that the character is being passive. Even Crawford has made that mistake when talking about them.


I have seen in some adventure something like "players could notice that ... if Passive Perception DC 15, if they search they must succeed on a WIS (Perception) check DC 10".Module writers (still) don't understand the 5e ability check system. Nothing new there.

[Dalebert]

It's easier for me to think of it in 3E terms. Investigation is Search. Perception is Spot.

Number 1, let 3.x die. Thinking in 3.x terms usually leads to assumptions that don't apply to 5e. The old skills don't necessarily map onto the new ones which are much broader as there are fewer of them. Number 2, they both have an active and a passive form so it doesn't make sense to simplify it down to investigation being the active form of perception. If you are simply trying to "perceive" something, i.e. be aware of it's existence and location, then perception applies. If you are trying to pick up details about that thing or significance about it's context in a particular situation, investigation applies.



Wis (Perception) lets you see a door partly open, with an anvil balanced on top of it.
Int (Investigation?) lets you realize that it's a trap that will drop the anvil on your head if you open the door.


Yeah, I kind of agree with this. Another way to think of perception, a wisdom skill, is like your intuition. It's like spidey sense, when you get a bad feeling but it's vague. You hear voices behind a thick door (per) but whether you make out what creatures they are or what language they're speaking might be a DC 15 (inv) and making out exactly what they're saying might be DC 20 (inv). A visual example: Sensing movement behind a waterfall (per) but analyzing the blurry image against all the creatures you're familiar with to identify it (inv).

"Something's... not right here, but I can't put my finger on it. This section of wall is... off."

Putting your finger on exactly what it is that's not right is like putting all the puzzle pieces you've gathered (per) together to make sense of it (inv).

PC: I'm searching the room for secret compartments or doors.

DM: You just perceived that there is a space between these two rooms that's much thicker than a normal wall which is very unusual and arouses your suspicion.

PC: I'm going to check all around that space and see if I can figure out a way into it.

NOW, you roll to investigate. You're pretty sure SOMETHING is there akin to your search, but figuring out exactly where it is and how to open it is investigation, e.g. finding a switch or figuring out that a wall pivots on a central point if you push it in exactly the right spot. Investigation tends to be a lot more touchy-feely. In many cases, I might impose disadvantage if people try to do it without touching anything, at least with an AT mage hand.


If you're busy doing something else (e.g. Foraging, Mapping, Navigating, Mapping) you don't get to use your passive perception, because you're not actively looking for threats.

That's a little bit narrow of an interpretation of passive checks. You don't use your passive if you're not being active? :smallconfused: For instance, it's the score you use pretty much across the board to determine whether a stealth roll is effective against a particular creature.

At most it seems like you're less likely to notice something, like an enemy sneaking up on you, when you're particularly distracted. There are situations when you might apply disadvantage, i.e. -5 to passive, but unless there is zero chance of perceiving something, you should at most apply disadvantage. Even sleeping, you can be woken up. Some people are twitchy/light sleepers. I think a very high passive would represent that. Even with disadvantage imposed on them, you better have a good stealth to avoid waking them up. I'm one of those IRL. I'm sure we've all had times when whispering people woke us up.

[Tanarii]

,
That's a little bit narrow of an interpretation of passive checks. You don't use your passive if you're not being active? :smallconfused: For instance, it's the score you use pretty much across the board to determine whether a stealth roll is effective against a particular creature.Its not a narrow interpretation. I'm referencing a rule. PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring, Activity While Traveling, Other Activities, p 183. You cannot use passive perception if you focus on another activity instead of watching for danger*, such as the four examples they provide and I've listed.

You also cannot use passive perception if the DM decides you cannot notice the threat, such as being in the wrong rank in the marching order, per Noticing Threats p182.

*exact wording = "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." In other words, you're "actively" doing something else instead of "actively" watching for danger.

[acemcjack]

That would explain why Passive Perception starts at 10, and not lower than that. If it's assumed that you ARE focusing on perceiving traps and secret doors, then taking the average score makes sense.
I always thought using perception passively meant you are focusing on other stuff.

[Dalebert]

Its not a narrow interpretation. I'm referencing a rule. PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring, Activity While Traveling, Other Activities, p 183.

Emphasis mine.


You cannot use passive perception if you focus on another activity instead of watching for danger*, such as the four examples they provide and I've listed.

That's begging the question. The next sentence provides crucial context before you jump to that conclusion:


You also cannot use passive perception if the DM decides you cannot notice the threat, such as being in the wrong rank in the marching order, per Noticing Threats p182.

Sure, if the DM decides something is not possible to notice, e.g. footsteps behind you when your entire party is making footsteps right behind you, but even then it's the DM's call depending on context. They're just giving an example. It doesn't say passive perception is gone. It says a particular thing might not be noticable.

If you apply this too sweepingly, as I feel you are encouraging, you lead people to think that enemies get to auto-surprise the ranger who's navigating or following some tracks because he is now incapable of perceiving anything going on around him except for the tracks, like his perception of anything else at all is turned off. That's not the case which should be common sense and that's not what it's saying.


*exact wording = "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." In other words, you're "actively" doing something else instead of "actively" watching for danger.

You left out the context of the very next sentence: "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."

Ex: You decide to do a group passive check to see if the party collectively realizes they're being followed from some distance behind.

"Did you hear that?"
"Yeah, you too? It's coming from back there"
*They get the ranger's attention who was focused on the tracks and he hushes everyone and makes an active check.*

It DOES NOT say they aren't capable of using passive perception at all for anything. You're leaping to a fairly absurd conclusion based on what it does say.

1) Some things are impossible to notice based on the DM's judgment. (of course)
2) The group's perception as a whole is impeded by some characters being distracted. (also reasonable)

The second part is just a simplified in-group application of what I've already said about individuals--that a character's passive perception could be impeded by being distracted, or even asleep for instance. It absolutely does say that it turns completely off to everything just because you're distracted.

[Tanarii]

Dalebert, if you're going to respond to the rules, please go read them fist. You quite clearly haven't, since you're trying to claim context from my post and mixing and matching the two rules I've referenced in an attempt to do so.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules has the adventuring chapter

[Dalebert]

Don't try to turn this around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim Bigfoot exists, it's not on me to disprove its existence. You've made two extraordinary claims:

1) That a passive check requires you to be actively doing something. :smallconfused:
2) That you are incapable of perceiving something if you're not actively focused on perceiving that thing, which in the case of threats would amount to auto-surprise in many, many cases.

And I've debunked the so-called evidence provided so far.

[OvisCaedo]

As silly of a name as it likely was, the "passive" in passive checks refers to the lack of actually rolling dice. Passive on the player/GM's part, not the character's.

[Dalebert]

My point is passive checks can be used for a check done repeatedly but that's not all they're used for. This is the nail in the coffin--my disproof of the existence of this proverbial bigfoot, even though the burden of proof is not on me.

PHB p. 177 under Hiding:

Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance
someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To
determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM
compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s
passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the
creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses
or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For
disadvantage, subtract 5.

[DanyBallon]

It's not a perfect solution, but for our group, we ruled that Wisdom (Perception) checks are always passive and Intelligence (Investigation) checks are always active checks. So if a character is walking own a hallway and may ear noise ahead, or notice a crak in the wall, the DM will roll against their passive perception. On the other hand, it the player state that his character is actively looking for traps, or carefully paying attention to details on the wall, then the DM will ask for investigation check. Observant feat gives à +5 to both skills (it haven't been picked up often, so it doesn't feel OP in my group for the moment).

If anyone else wants to test it and of their feedback, feel free to do so. The more playtest it gets, the more I'll be able to balanced it :smallsmile:

[Dark Schneider]

My point is passive checks can be used for a check done repeatedly but that's not all they're used for. This is the nail in the coffin--my disproof of the existence of this proverbial bigfoot, even though the burden of proof is not on me.

PHB p. 177 under Hiding:
even if they aren't searching
That's what I was thinking about, but didn't remember where it was. I also think that passive can also be used for noticing things even if not checking actively. It happens in real life, you are walking and notice something around you.

[Tanarii]

My point is passive checks can be used for a check done repeatedly but that's not all they're used for. This is the nail in the coffin--my disproof of the existence of this proverbial bigfoot, even though the burden of proof is not on me.

PHB p. 177 under Hiding:
Not searching != not focusing on looking for danger. Dont try to confuse the issue by bringing in a specific subset of the greater activity.

[Dalebert]

Not searching != not focusing on looking for danger.

Not arguing that. My point doesn't depend on it. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that you have to be actively looking for danger in order to gain a passive perception check. Where does it say that? That's the extraordinary claim. Under this bizarre interpretation of the rules, rogues auto-succeed against any character who is not actively adventuring. Someone is reading a book in their home? The assassin automatically succeeds on his stealth and automatically gains surprise and automatically gets to autocrit! Why? Because the person is reading a book and not focusing on looking for danger. That's obscenely broken!

I just pointed out the rules where it says in plain English how to handle a hide check. You use passive perception. That's the default case. Characters have a passive perception all the time. It's built into the name. Anything you've pointed out so far has been an exception to the general rule for passive perception, i.e. contributing to a group check and things being judged by the DM as unnoticeable in a very particular context.

[Pex]

Number 1, let 3.x die. Thinking in 3.x terms usually leads to assumptions that don't apply to 5e. The old skills don't necessarily map onto the new ones which are much broader as there are fewer of them. Number 2, they both have an active and a passive form so it doesn't make sense to simplify it down to investigation being the active form of perception. If you are simply trying to "perceive" something, i.e. be aware of it's existence and location, then perception applies. If you are trying to pick up details about that thing or significance about it's context in a particular situation, investigation applies.


Don't tell me how to play.

I already know my way of thinking about it doesn't match what the rules say and had said so. By doing it as I do it's one less thing I have to stop and think about. I do it my way because I've played with DMs doing it the book way and there were confusion, doubt, and inconsistencies that bothered me. I suppose I do add to the inconsistency by doing it in yet another way, but that's 5E for you. I find it notorious for its lack of consistency when it comes to skills.

[Dalebert]

...but that's 5E for you. I find it notorious for its lack of consistency when it comes to skills.

That's a fair point and I sympathize, but...


Don't tell me how to play.

That's kind of the whole point of a discussion forum. We're just discussing the rules as they are written and what we think the designers intended and what we think works or doesn't. Yes, obviously you can ignore my take on it and play your game however you want but I'm just responding to your thoughts with my own.

[Dark Schneider]

This is not true. The fewer rolls you have, the better it is for the player with the better odds. In the extreme case, where one contestant is much better than the other, the only way they can fail is if they roll low and their opponent rolls high, which isn't possible at all when there's only one roll. But even in less extreme cases, the second roll still matters.
You are right. But I use the situation to say that it is the more fair way. Because get the case of that low Stealth and high Perception, if you roll high Stealth (but that it would not succeed against PP) and a low Perception roll, Stealth could succeed, so it takes advantage of that roll vs roll. But what about the opposite?, low Stealth roll and high Perception roll, the Perception one does not takes any advantage at all.
If we would apply some kind of consequence, like giving the surprise advantage to the Perception guy instead the Stealth one, then OK, but if not we are giving advantage to the Stealth because it can succeed when it was supposed not to do, but in the other hand we are not giving the counterpart to the Perception for the same.

So applying a 10 (really passive that could be higher), is the best way. If someone is bad on Stealth, and the other one is very good at Perception, well simply can't pass unnoticed by that guy unless you can grant some kind of disadvantage (-5 to passive) to him. In some cases could be even impossible, out of your capabilities.

Using Passive Perception is like establishing the DC for the maneuver.

[HappyDaze]

For traps and such, I often combine the need for both Perception and Investigation (always in that order). Perception provides the clues and Investigation lets them put the clues together in useful ways.

For example, noticing several holes in the dungeon ceiling and floor is Perception. That's about as far as Perception goes--giving sensory information on something that might have been missed. Investigation can then help determine if those are part of a trap or if they are simply ventilation and drainage. If it is a trap, success on that same Investigation may allow a bonus on avoiding or disarming it or some other piece of useful information (e.g., it's an acid-based trap).

[Tanarii]

Not arguing that. My point doesn't depend on it. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that you have to be actively looking for danger in order to gain a passive perception check. Where does it say that?Once again, in the adventuring rules:
Other Activities
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission.

Traveling includes exploring a dungeon. It is any time you're out of combat, in the exploration pillar of the game. And in that circumstance, if you're not focused on watching for danger, and instead doing another task (like the example four given) you explicitly don't use your passive perception to notice hidden threats. Among other things, it means you will automatically be surprised if you are ambushed.

In combat, it's already assumed you're watching for danger. So you'll always use passive perception.

The DM would have to rule if reading a book in a peaceful quiet home environment is as engrossing as Foraging, Navigating, Mapping, or Tracking in a wilderness or dungeon adventuring site. I'm going to guess most would not.

Maybe the confusion you're having is trying to turn rules for adventuring in a dangerous wilderness or dungeon environment, where you need to focus on looking for danger, or give that up in return for focusing on something else, into a set of simulation rules for every day living?

[Dalebert]

You're just making claims now and you still haven't shown me in the rules where it says you have zero passive perception if you're actively engaged in something else. It stops contributing to a group check. That's it. If you can keep your passive perception while actively engaged in a fight, then I don't see why you wouldn't keep it while doing something far less engrossing, like navigating. Automatic surprise because you're checking a map and looking for landmarks? Again, an extraordinary claim and no evidence in the rules yet.

I get that you may run it that way. It's your game. But prove that's the intent.

[Dark Schneider]

The rules, at least when moving, says that, you can't use your PP if doing other things. But I think probably many of us will allow to use it with disadvantage. It is one of those for me too extreme non-sense rules of all-or-nothing, because is not like you are unconscious or blinded and deafened. Let's imagine this case: you are travelling while drawing the map, and Ogre with its negative DEX rolls an "1" on Stealth, that is something like a large creature is showing clearly stomping with a deafening noise, you notice it not even a little, seriously? You are doing other things or in another plane of existence?
I apply disadvantage to Passive Perception and that's all.

[acemcjack]

You're just making claims now and you still haven't shown me in the rules where it says you have zero passive perception if you're actively engaged in something else. It stops contributing to a group check. That's it. If you can keep your passive perception while actively engaged in a fight, then I don't see why you wouldn't keep it while doing something far less engrossing, like navigating. Automatic surprise because you're checking a map and looking for landmarks? Again, an extraordinary claim and no evidence in the rules yet.

I get that you may run it that way. It's your game. But prove that's the intent.
The exact wording in the book is:
"These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats". (my bolding)
It's not talking about Group Checks. If it did, I imagine this section would be under the "Group Checks" section of the book.
So the way I read it is, that if no one is actually focusing on watching for danger, no one gets to use their Passive Perception (if the DM chose to let them use it in the first place).

[Bundin]

You're just making claims now and you still haven't shown me in the rules where it says you have zero passive perception if you're actively engaged in something else. It stops contributing to a group check. That's it. If you can keep your passive perception while actively engaged in a fight, then I don't see why you wouldn't keep it while doing something far less engrossing, like navigating. Automatic surprise because you're checking a map and looking for landmarks? Again, an extraordinary claim and no evidence in the rules yet.

I get that you may run it that way. It's your game. But prove that's the intent.

He did. PHB p. 183: Chapter 8: Adventuring, header 'Activity While Traveling', subheader 'Other Activities'. It's stated very clearly that IF busy with something else THEN you cannot contribute to noticing things (effectively setting PP to zero for that time). Then, it suggests several other activities that the character may be doing.

As for why it works during a fight, see PHB p. 177 'Hiding':

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

And then, Passive Perception is explained: There's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching.

Conclusion: in combat, everyone is hyper-alert because they know there's danger around, and PP always works. You might be distracted (and take sneak damage because of a second enemy within 5 feet), or DM rules that someone stays hidden and gets advantage in specific cases, but in general, you're very much aware of everything that's going on. The fact that you always get your dex mod to AC hints to it as well: you always respond during the attack. There's no more Flat Footed condition and no more Touch AC.

You might not agree and play it differently at your tabel, but this is what the book tells us.

[guachi]

Animals have average to good Perception.
Animals have terrible Investigation.

If it's something a dog, cat, or bird could routinely find then I use Perception.
If it's something an animal would have to be trained to do or something that we attribute to a clever animal (like the proverbial squirrel that can get the bird seed no matter what) then I use Investigation.

So spotting the signs of a secret door is Perception. Actually knowing it's a secret door and figuring out how to open it is Investigation.

[Azgeroth]

my way of looking at it, is.

Perception > Creatures
Investigation > Objects

i won't expand on that too much, there is enough in the thread already. but despite any arguments against, running this way gives more weight to INT as an ability, and investigation as a skill.

basically, perception is too see a thing, investigation is to understand a thing.

i.e. you might well see evidence of a trap, but without the understanding of what it is, its just part of the environment. also, you might be able to tell that the bush that just caught your attention is of x genus, but perception tells you it rustled because something is lurking in it.

[HappyDaze]

my way of looking at it, is.

Perception > Creatures
Investigation > Objects

i won't expand on that too much, there is enough in the thread already. but despite any arguments against, running this way gives more weight to INT as an ability, and investigation as a skill.

basically, perception is too see a thing, investigation is to understand a thing.

i.e. you might well see evidence of a trap, but without the understanding of what it is, its just part of the environment. also, you might be able to tell that the bush that just caught your attention is of x genus, but perception tells you it rustled because something is lurking in it.

The Objects/Creatures divide doesn't work very well. IMO, noticing caltrops or marbles or ice on the floor as you're about to walk into a hallway is far less Investigation than Perception.

[Helldin87]

I don't know if it helps but to limit the near-godliness of my the perception skill I have my players use a simple rule: If you know what you are looking for and roughly where it is: You are Investigating. If you don't know and are just trying to be observant then you are Perceiving. This distinction seems to help and helps nerf an otherwise very used skill.

Sort of related: I try to show love to other skill checks too. Obviously the mental skills are meant to shine in social situations but I make sure to include History and Religion checks as often as possible and try to give meaningful information/rewards. "You learned a fun tidbit about Mcguffin A" can be disheartening compared to "you found treasure".

[Azgeroth]

The Objects/Creatures divide doesn't work very well. IMO, noticing caltrops or marbles or ice on the floor as you're about to walk into a hallway is far less Investigation than Perception.

your right, i should have explained a bit better, i was just trying to avoid a wall of text..

so here we go!

perception > Creatures

noticing a creature that is hiding, evidence of them hiding, or their presence.

i.e. the rustling of a bush, a cloaker hidden against a dark cieling, the shadow of a predator in the sky..

Investigation > Objects

the picture on the wall of a ship, the symbol on the side of the ship is out of place, not only would it be highly unusual for the ship to have a symbol in that location, but the symbol itself has nothing to do with sailing, more likely it is an instruction on what message is required to gain passage.


in this sense, perception is what alerts the players to the presence of creatures, regardless of if they are trying to hide or not, investigation is what allows a player to ascertain details, such as in the example above, or hidden doors/traps/switches etc.


to respond to your reply, perception can and should describe certain details of the environment, such as the presence of ice/fire/water, caltrops, doors, windows, etc etc. investigation would tell you if the caltrops were thrown down in haste, or placed with care and intent, the potential source of the fire/ice/water if not immediately obvious..

so lets give an example of how these things might play out..

the party is traveling down a corridor of a dungeon, rogue up front, he says im looking for signs of danger, traps, creatures, etc. you tell him to roll perception, he rolls well enough to beat the DC of the trip wire trap, you describe the tunnel ahead, and the presence of the trip wire. he immediately states, i disarm the trap.

now there are 2 ways to go from here, let him roll, assuming his passive investigation is high enough to understand the trap in front of him, you explain his familiarity with it, and he makes the attempt.

alternatively, he doesn't have a high enough passive investigation, you explain he isn't familiar with this kind of trap, he is going to have to investigate before attempting to disarm it. he rolls investigation,
you might then rule,
he rolled way too low, he has no idea how this trap works, does he want to try anyway? the DC is increased suitably.
he was close, but failed,, his character has a false understanding, you communicate to the player, they believe they understand it, roll to disarm. increase DC
he beats the dc, understand it enough to attempt the disarm without penalty
he aces the roll, he can attempt the disarm with some benefit, or decreased DC

similiarly, if we look at the example of the ship painting, we set a DC to recognise it as odd, and then a higher DC to understand it, so characters with a low passive investigation may or may not recognise it immediately (i.e. you describe it without them rolling) but not understand it without rolling, alternatively they may have a high enough passive to beat both DC's in which case you describe the details in full without prompting for a roll.

in the same vein, you might have a high enough passive perception to notice the rustling of leaves, or scratching of claws, but not to recognise the cause (presence of a creature) you would then call for a perception check, alternatively, they do have a high enough passive to outright spot the creature and you declare to that player.

why multiple DC's? simply put, there are 5 ways to perceive a creature, sight, sound, hearing, smell, touch. and whilst a creature may have rolled really well to hide, that they can defy all of your players senses is a bit much. in the same way that it doesn't matter how well the rogue rolled, he hasn't bathed in a week, and that wolf has a mighty fine nose.

you might recognise the painting as odd, but that is not to say you understand the significance of it.

[acemcjack]

That was pretty much what I suggested. Perception is vs. Stealth, while Investigation is vs. things that have a fixed DC to find.
Perception is also to notice things which aren't hidden from you. You might notice the leaves covering the trap with Perception, but not the pit under it. That would require Investigation.

[guachi]

That was pretty much what I suggested. Perception is vs. Stealth, while Investigation is vs. things that have a fixed DC to find.
Perception is also to notice things which aren't hidden from you. You might notice the leaves covering the trap with Perception, but not the pit under it. That would require Investigation.

So a dog sniffing for hidden drugs uses his terrible Investigation(INT) at -4 instead of his Perception(WIS) at +3 at advantage to find them? How does this make any sense?

[Man_Over_Game]

So a dog sniffing for hidden drugs uses his terrible Investigation(INT) at -4 instead of his Perception(WIS) at +3 at advantage to find them? How does this make any sense?

To be fair, Perception and scents in 5e was always a really weird situation to deal with. Dogs get advantage, so a player can sniff for drugs at a normal rate? Or alternatively, is a Ranger with Observant (+5 to passive Perception) as good as sniffing for drugs as a dog (Advantage translates to roughly +5)? Best just to leave scents out of the topic for now.

I've actually done a lot of digging into this topic, on several forums, and I finally came up with something that satisfies me:

Each character gets one "passive" slot that they can fill with a skill. This passive slot accounts for how they're acting by default, or even when they're attempting other actions. For example, a historian doesn't have to think about their vast talents into History as they travel through a forest, it's already on their mind. A Barbarian doesn't need to actively be athletic, he simply IS.

From there, it simply comes down to sorting out how each skill performs as a passive skill. In terms of Perception vs. Investigation, I use Perception for recognizing quickly passing events (such as something shooting by, or a smell in the wind), where Passive Investigation for recognizing why the room's floor is probably painted red BEFORE you enter the room (Hint: IT'S A TRAP).

It lets everyone regularly stand out, lowers Perception on the totem pole, and provides some unique mechanics that players like to see but never think about (like how Medicine might help you realize that traveling through snow would probably be a bad thing without winter clothes).

As a DM, this really satisfies me, so that rather than trying to figure out how to fit 12 skills across 4 players without one person hogging all the glory, I just have to think about how to fit 4 skills across 4 players consistently, which is a lot more doable and fun.

[Dark Schneider]

In the case of dogs they use Perception. They don't reason about clues or anything, they are only trained to reply to certain conditions.

[Azgeroth]

To be fair, Perception and scents in 5e was always a really weird situation to deal with. Dogs get advantage, so a player can sniff for drugs at a normal rate? Or alternatively, is a Ranger with Observant (+5 to passive Perception) as good as sniffing for drugs as a dog (Advantage translates to roughly +5)? Best just to leave scents out of the topic for now.

I've actually done a lot of digging into this topic, on several forums, and I finally came up with something that satisfies me:

Each character gets one "passive" slot that they can fill with a skill. This passive slot accounts for how they're acting by default, or even when they're attempting other actions. For example, a historian doesn't have to think about their vast talents into History as they travel through a forest, it's already on their mind. A Barbarian doesn't need to actively be athletic, he simply IS.

From there, it simply comes down to sorting out how each skill performs as a passive skill. In terms of Perception vs. Investigation, I use Perception for recognizing quickly passing events (such as something shooting by, or a smell in the wind), where Passive Investigation for recognizing why the room's floor is probably painted red BEFORE you enter the room (Hint: IT'S A TRAP).

It lets everyone regularly stand out, lowers Perception on the totem pole, and provides some unique mechanics that players like to see but never think about (like how Medicine might help you realize that traveling through snow would probably be a bad thing without winter clothes).

As a DM, this really satisfies me, so that rather than trying to figure out how to fit 12 skills across 4 players without one person hogging all the glory, I just have to think about how to fit 4 skills across 4 players consistently, which is a lot more doable and fun.

i LIKE IT!!

i agree with the premise whole heartedly, a good way to incorporate the other skills as you say, and also a resolution to the whole perception vs investigation debacle. (i'm just glad no one mentioned arcana and glyphs..)

[acemcjack]

To be fair, Perception and scents in 5e was always a really weird situation to deal with. Dogs get advantage, so a player can sniff for drugs at a normal rate? Or alternatively, is a Ranger with Observant (+5 to passive Perception) as good as sniffing for drugs as a dog (Advantage translates to roughly +5)? Best just to leave scents out of the topic for now.
I think that the distinction between perception and investigation is whether or not the thing is in plain sight (or whatever sense you're using) or hidden. Regarding the use of the sense of smell that animals have, the scent is usually just there, but you need to be sensitive to it in order to detect it.
Take a blind person for example. He could be standing near a tree, but he can't see it. It's hidden from him (unless he can hear the rustle of its leaves or something). So he must investigate in order to find it.
Dogs can sniff drugs because of their acute sense of smell. The scent is just there to pick up, if you can. So it's perception.
A trap is hidden, so it calls for an Investigation check. Though you might spot the trip wire, or the pressure plate, if it's right there in front of you. If it's covered by foliage or something else, it's hidden, and therefore, requires an Investigation check.


I've actually done a lot of digging into this topic, on several forums, and I finally came up with something that satisfies me:

Each character gets one "passive" slot that they can fill with a skill. This passive slot accounts for how they're acting by default, or even when they're attempting other actions. For example, a historian doesn't have to think about their vast talents into History as they travel through a forest, it's already on their mind. A Barbarian doesn't need to actively be athletic, he simply IS.

From there, it simply comes down to sorting out how each skill performs as a passive skill. In terms of Perception vs. Investigation, I use Perception for recognizing quickly passing events (such as something shooting by, or a smell in the wind), where Passive Investigation for recognizing why the room's floor is probably painted red BEFORE you enter the room (Hint: IT'S A TRAP).

It lets everyone regularly stand out, lowers Perception on the totem pole, and provides some unique mechanics that players like to see but never think about (like how Medicine might help you realize that traveling through snow would probably be a bad thing without winter clothes).

As a DM, this really satisfies me, so that rather than trying to figure out how to fit 12 skills across 4 players without one person hogging all the glory, I just have to think about how to fit 4 skills across 4 players consistently, which is a lot more doable and fun.

I really like it too! Does the player choose which skill he gets a Passive in, or is it something that derives from the PC's class?

[Dark Schneider]

I also use passive a lot, but in a different way:

- For short checks, the 1st one is a roll, but if the characters uses some more time it can use his passive. Useful if he thinks the roll (hidden) was under his passive.

- For long checks (Research, area search like an entire room, indentify item with Arcana at short rest, etc.) I allow player to chose if roll or use his passive.

- Doing thins carefully, this is expendind more time, i.e. 1 minute instead 1 round for lock picks, move at half speed of the already slower movement (climbing, looking for traps), and things like those, roll and use the greater the roll or passive.

- For indirect confrontation: Stealth vs Passive Perception, Deception vs Passive Insight, etc. Notice that direct ones, like when grappling Athletic vs Athletics or Acrobatics, use rolls in both sides.

So, I use passive more like your average, that can be used when you put some time and/or care in the task. I think is how it could work in real life: if we hurry can get bad results (only roll), if we put care we usually use average but can bright (roll and passive), for repetitive tasks (long ones) we can use average to achieve something in our capabilities, or try something harder but we can fail.

[CapnZapp]

I know this has been discussed before, but I've been thinking a lot about the overuse of the Perception skill in 5th Edition.
I use Perception for finding stuff that moves about (and thus hides).

I use Investigation for everything else: finding hard to notice wall paper patterns, hidden traps and levers, and such.

So Perception is used to avoid ambushes; to be allowed to act in the first combat round. (As well as spotting far away flying birds or orc war parties etc) That alone makes it useful.

Investigation is the skill you use for everything "thievery". Finding traps, of all sorts.

The question is simple: does it move?

Yes: use Perception (vs Stealth perhaps)
No: use Investigation vs the listed DC

[acemcjack]

I use Perception for finding stuff that moves about (and thus hides).

I use Investigation for everything else: finding hard to notice wall paper patterns, hidden traps and levers, and such.

So Perception is used to avoid ambushes; to be allowed to act in the first combat round. (As well as spotting far away flying birds or orc war parties etc) That alone makes it useful.

Investigation is the skill you use for everything "thievery". Finding traps, of all sorts.

The question is simple: does it move?

Yes: use Perception (vs Stealth perhaps)
No: use Investigation vs the listed DC

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up nicely. 🙂

[Dark Schneider]

That could work on many cases, but what about traps based on wires?, you have to see the wire.

I think it would be better on each case use the appropriate one, there can be traps based on Perception and others on Investigation. The problem is that adventures creators goes to easy and mistakenly set always Perception.

[Theodoric]

I tie them to their respective ability scores.
Investigation is basically detective-vision as it pertains to objects (not people, that's Insight). Connect clues, analyse materials, sift through large amounts of information or items, reconstruct scenarios, etc. Hence the Intelligence.

Wisdom is more being in tune with the surroundings, so with Perception a character is looking for things that are out of place or unusual. Hidden enemies, happenings off in the distance, and so on. As characters in dangerous situations are assumed to be looking everywhere, it's mostly passive.

There is some overlap, so I allow a bit of freedom as to which check to use. Works well enough so far. I could spend a lot of time to get a more clean distinction, but I frankly don't think it would be worth it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I really like it too! Does the player choose which skill he gets a Passive in, or is it something that derives from the PC's class?

The player chooses. I put more emphasis on Short Rests as "a start to a new adventuring scene", where they roll initiative at the end of Short Rests, and I also let them decide what passive skills they're using for that time.

You have to ask why the player is doing what they're doing. If an Orc is trying to be intimidating in the middle of the dungeon, it may be because he's simply trying to be overprotective of the Halfling who he's friends with. With that understanding of what that character is trying to accomplish, I can better create a benefit that fits the narrative.

In my Intimidating Orc scenario, I would translate that as one of these:

Characters smaller than the Orc feel more secure, their initiative cannot be lower than the Orc's passive intimidation.

The Orc is more expectant of danger, can use their Passive Intimidation rather than Perception for determining hidden enemies (but not traps, because he's stupid and doesn't think about that).
The Orc is imposing himself for adjacent allies, causing their Dexterity saving throws while traveling to be at least his passive Intimidation.



The trick is to come up with something for each skill in their most unlikely scenario.


Survival in a dungeon? You recognize the kind of blood stained into the walls as being from Lizardmen, and that this particular type of Lizardmen blood ignites with fire when dry.
Persuasion in a forest? You debate with an ally, and you help them recognize their faults and values. Their next failed saving throw defaults to your passive Persuasion.
Sleight of Hand away from something to steal? You are ready for any surprises coming your way, advantage on your next Dexterity saving throw.
Athletics and no baggage? You can comfortably run ahead of your team and spend your extra energy scouting about if you like, since this trek is so easy for you. Or maybe your initiative is +5 for the next combat due to how pumped you are.



Work out the most obscure situations, and the rest becomes really easy to fill in.

Make these bonuses reactive, not proactive. Do not tell the Rogue that his Sleight of Hand choice leads to a Dexterity Saving Throw bonus, but instead use that as a backup plan should nothing come up that could use Sleight of Hand.

If I need a little bit of time to come up with a "backup" list of bonuses for these passives, that's fine, since these usually are chosen at the end of a Short Rest anyway. My group really likes it, since it gives them a lot to look forward to.