Passive Perception and Investigation

[MThurston]

Do DMs give information on the spot or after some time? Mix?

An example would be a coat missing that is always hanging. Would the PC notice right away or maybe later because it was a passive check and not an active one?


Also if someone rolls to find a key and rolls a 9 but needed a 12, his passive score.

Would you give the PC the key now or have him remember later where they had seen it last?

[Ninja_Prawn]

I definitely make an effort to give information that would be passively perceived/intuited in my narration when I set the scene. It's a tricky line to walk though, because if you talk for too long about all the things they see, people will switch off, but if you only give a few key details, they'll assume they're all plot relevant.

Plus, if you give them everything, you'll have nothing left to say when they ask for more! So, I mean, the information transfer always ends up being a mixture of 'during narration', 'when asked by a player' and 'in response to an active check'. You can't really avoid that, and every DM will offer a different mix of those.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The exact framing context of any check and what success and failure mean are up to the DM to handle.

I would almost always treat a check as resolving something in the "here and now" of the game. It's an interesting possibility to narrate something as being a delayed success, but I wouldn't do that if something the players need now actually hinges on it. It could too easily come off as random dickery.

I don't think active vs passive makes much of a difference here.

[Keravath]

I usually treat the passive as a floor value for a check however there are two conditions.

1) The character MUST be taking a relevant action or activity that would make the check possible.
- this means that when the characters look into a room with a high perception and are actively looking for things then they would notice the missing coat (if passive > DC) and I would include that in my narration ... Unless the missing coat usually hangs behind the door ... in which case they have to enter and search the room in order to notice this detail.
- this also means that they won't notice the secret drawer in the desk or a false bottom to a desk drawer UNLESS they actually search and open the desk.
- this also means that a character walking along mapping the dungeon and focusing their attention on other activities will not get a passive check to notice an ambush. The character needs to be actively performing a relevant activity for passive skill checks to apply.

Passive and Active do not refer to the character actions ... they refer to whether the DM asks the player to roll dice. A passive check is when the player is passive and doesn't roll while an active check is one where the player is active and requires a roll. Both passive and active checks require the character to be doing something that would allow them to notice whatever there is to be noticed. A character without darkvision, walking down a dark corridor, humming to themselves and thinking about their planned social outing isn't going to notice the hidden pit in front of them while a character that is proceeding cautiously, paying attention, may notice that the sound is echoing oddly giving them an indication that something is wrong ahead even if they can't see it.


2) There is no time pressure for their actions or activities. Searching during a combat round when you only have 6 seconds and there are obvious distractions will require a roll. On the other hand, if you are searching or watching for several minutes then I will use passive as a floor and ask for a roll if the passive is not enough and a roll seems appropriate.

P.S. In terms of narration, if a passive check succeeds, I just reveal the exciting find, sometimes emphasizing the capabilities of the character who noticed it if appropriate. The character should get some positive feedback for whatever character decisions lead to them being able to do something that other party members can't.

[Bjarkmundur]

Would the PC notice right away or maybe later because it was a passive check and not an active one?

PASSIVE CHECKS
Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something.

Passive checks are just ability checks, and are used exactly the same. The only difference is whether the DM makes you roll a dice or determines the result based on an average roll. It's pretty much just Take 10 with a different name, but for DMs.

So, you are secretly determining what the players notice or not, use passive perception.
If you are secretly determining if a player manages to deduce a fact based on new information, use passive investigation.
If a player states "i'm gonna search the room for secret doors" use passive perception.

[Maelynn]

An example would be a coat missing that is always hanging. Would the PC notice right away or maybe later because it was a passive check and not an active one?

Perception is seeing there's no coat, Investigation is realising there's supposed to be a coat there that suddenly isn't there. Both should be noticed right away if their passive scores are high enough for the DC. The difference is that one is purely using senses to determine what is and isn't there, and the other requires some deduction on (aka your brain 'processing') what it means.

As for remembering something you saw earlier, that'd be an Intelligence check since you're trying to retrieve something from memory. You could make this roll for the player to bring it as a surprise, or you could have them roll a few times. Either which way, at some point they meet the DC and then you can tell them 'you suddenly remember that you saw a key somewhere back'.


Also if someone rolls to find a key and rolls a 9 but needed a 12, his passive score.

Apparently there was a Dragon Talk podcast (haven't been able to find the correct link, sorry) where JC stated that the passive skill is the floor, or the minimum, of the possible result a character should get. An active roll should only be required if their passive score wasn't high enough to meet the DC. So if their passive score was 12 and that was the DC, then they should've found the key without requiring a roll. If the DC was 15, then they would've had to roll and see if they can get a higher result than 12.

The only situation I could think of where I'd allow a lower result to count, is when someone is very distracted or really focused on searching for something else. As long as it's a good reason for someone to 'not be paying attention', otherwise the passive skill is the minimum result they'll get.


So, you are secretly determining what the players notice or not, use passive perception.
If you are secretly determining if a player manages to deduce a fact based on new information, use passive investigation.
If a player states "i'm gonna search the room for secret doors" use passive perception.

Shouldn't that last one be active?

[Ninja_Prawn]

JC stated that the passive skill is the floor, or the minimum, of the possible result a character should get. An active roll should only be required if their passive score wasn't high enough to meet the DC.

Case in point for why I ignore everything JC says! :smalltongue:

[Coffee_Dragon]

Yeah, if all characters were supposed to have Reliable Talent Plus Plus then the rules should jolly well have said so.

[NaughtyTiger]

i use the passive rolls to ask for an active roll. if their passive is high enough to find the hidden object, then i ask. kinda like highlighting an interactive object in a video game, the player then chooses whether or not to investigate it.

i still flounder at the difference between perception/investigation


Yeah, if all characters were supposed to have Reliable Talent Plus Plus then the rules should jolly well have said so.

agree.

[stoutstien]

Passive checks are a great tool to tell a player where to start but shouldn't be a replacement for active ones.
I tend to have PP and PI information ready that is completely separate from what a players character would find from an actual search or whatnot.
I also shifted all knowledge skills to passive checks.

[Ninja_Prawn]

i still flounder at the difference between perception/investigation

Perception is when you use your senses to detect what is present. "I walk into the room and look around" and "I press my ear up to the door" is a character using perception. They will receive information about what is there, but no explanation of why or what it means.

Incestigation is focussed/detailed searching and making deductions. "I rifle through the drawers to see if there is a letter from the big boss" and "I go to the records office and try to find out who owns the warehouse" is a character using investigation. They're using their intelligence to interpret things that they have already perceived (there's an office table with a drawer, here's a records office full of land deeds).

That's my quick and dirty take, anyway.

[NaughtyTiger]

I also shifted all knowledge skills to passive checks.

angryGM had a nice write up about this... (of course, i am gonna do a poor job summarizing it)
identifying the weird symbol uses Passive Religion to reveal it's related to Lolth. performing the rite of exaltation is an Active Religion check.
memory is passive, doing is active. means 93% of intelligence checks are passive.


Perception is when you use your senses to detect what is present. "I walk into the room and look around" and "I press my ear up to the door" is a character using perception. They will receive information about what is there, but no explanation of why or what it means.

Incestigation is focussed/detailed searching and making deductions. "I rifle through the drawers to see if there is a letter from the big boss" and "I go to the records office and try to find out who owns the warehouse" is a character using investigation. They're using their intelligence to interpret things that they have already perceived (there's an office table with a drawer, here's a records office full of land deeds).

That's my quick and dirty take, anyway.

on paper, that's how i see it, too. but when we are playing it gets muddied.... first a perception check to notice the papers are messy, then an investigation to interpret the meaning... that's a lot of rolls. then the how to handle the intersection of rolling investigation vs players figuring out meaning of the clues.. but this is a whole nother thread, i don't want to hijack this one.

incestigation is a whole different thing... :)

[Rukelnikov]

Case in point for why I ignore everything JC says! :smalltongue:

except for the 650 pages he wrote before those tweets...

[RSP]

Apparently there was a Dragon Talk podcast (haven't been able to find the correct link, sorry) where JC stated that the passive skill is the floor, or the minimum, of the possible result a character should get. An active roll should only be required if their passive score wasn't high enough to meet the DC. So if their passive score was 12 and that was the DC, then they should've found the key without requiring a roll. If the DC was 15, then they would've had to roll and see if they can get a higher result than 12.



Just to clarify this: the “passive-check-as-floor” is only for Passive Perception, I believe, and is based on the idea that Players don’t need to state their characters are using their senses to do so. That is, a Player doesn’t need to state that their PC has their eyes open in order to see what is in the room: you can just assume, sans Blindness, that the PC’s eyes are open, and use a PP check to know what that PC noticed in the room.

Likewise, a Player doesn’t need to state that they’re listening for sounds, because the default state of creatures is to be aware of surrounding noises.

Effectively, since the PC should already have noticed anything covered by the PP score, any active roll shouldn’t exclude information that should have already been given due to PP, but for whatever reason wasn’t (in my case, that reason is usually that I forgot to do the PP check prior to the Player asking for the active check).

[Ninja_Prawn]

except for the 650 pages he wrote before those tweets...

To be fair, some of pages those contain decent ideas. At this point I'm assuming they came from someone else, though. <.<


the default state of creatures is to be aware of surrounding noises.

Bold of you to assume I know what's going on around me at any given time! :smalltongue:

[stoutstien]

angryGM had a nice write up about this... (of course, i am gonna do a poor job summarizing it)
identifying the weird symbol uses Passive Religion to reveal it's related to Lolth. performing the rite of exaltation is an Active Religion check.
memory is passive, doing is active. means 93% of intelligence checks are passive.

Agreed. I've been thinking a lot about this due to a request for a mysterious campaign for a table with a focus on finding and solving puzzles.

[Demonslayer666]

Do DMs give information on the spot or after some time? Mix?

An example would be a coat missing that is always hanging. Would the PC notice right away or maybe later because it was a passive check and not an active one?


Also if someone rolls to find a key and rolls a 9 but needed a 12, his passive score.

Would you give the PC the key now or have him remember later where they had seen it last?

On the spot. The only time they get more is when they spend time thoroughly searching (taking 20).

I don't use passive scores as a floor. I use them for when the player is not specifically doing that action, like when traveling along the road and casually observing, or for noticing traps when not searching for them.

[Keravath]

On the spot. The only time they get more is when they spend time thoroughly searching (taking 20).

I don't use passive scores as a floor. I use them for when the player is not specifically doing that action, like when traveling along the road and casually observing, or for noticing traps when not searching for them.

It's fine to use it that way if you wish. However, just for reference, passive and active in the rule book are referring to the player being passive or active in terms of rolling dice and not to the character. There are lots of examples out there. A good one is in the Lost Mines of Phandelver at the beginning where the characters are walking along a trail. If the characters say they are staying alert and watching for traps then they may notice the trap based on passive perception. If their passive isn't high enough or they aren't looking then they have to make an active roll to see if they notice the trap before setting it off.

Stating that you use passive when the character is being passive and not doing anything runs into issues with the observant feat that increases passive perception and investigation by 5. Using passive checks when the character is passive results in a character with observant being better at noticing things when they aren't looking than when the character is actively looking ... which really doesn't make any sense.

However, play how you like :)

[Tanarii]

Shouldn't that last one be active?
There is no such thing as active.

If you mean rolled by the player, it depends on if the PC is doing something once, as opposed to repeatedly, and there is no reason the check result needs to be secret from the player. The purpose of a passive check is so the player (not character) can be passive instead of rolling the dice when they would have to roll buckets over and over again, or can't know the result of the roll because it'll give stuff away.

The actual scenarios are:
1) the result is automatically successful or failure - no roll
2) the character can (and is willing to) take time in a specific area to make sure, and there is no consequence for failure - no roll, ten times as long
3) the result of the roll needs to be secret - passive
4) the character is doing the same thing repeatedly, same action but for different 'tasks' (ie scouting as they go, checking multiple parts of a large room quickly) - passive
5) doing something once, because there is consequences for failure or a time limit, and the result doesn't need to be secret - rolled

For Perception, not being secret results and only being allowed once in a time period pretty much limits rolled checks to combat search actions: looking for creatures that have hidden from you (ie beat you passive perception) so it doesn't matter if you know the results, and you get one chance (time limit of one round for the action).

Edit: another possibility might be if a player knows a trap is there, but needs to see it trigger to avoid it. Although personally I feel that's what Dex saves are for.

[Ironheart]

It’s my opinion that passive scores should be used (almost) exclusively by DM’s to reveal information that the player’s characters would not know to check for. An example of this would be:

DM: As you come into the clearing that has the castle, you stride up to the keep that lay at the bottom. *compares the player’s passive perception* Player 2, you spy a glint in one of the windows.
Player 2: that’s Odd. Can I determine what it is?
DM: Sure, give me a perception check.
Player 2: *rolls 14 on the die, getting his total to 24*
DM: You see the glint of an orb, held by a wizard. He seems to be scoping you out to fire a spell.
Party: Fudge.

I use it mostly as a helpful way to nudge players in the right direction if their skillset is tailored for the encounter. Not necessarily to force players to go down certain paths, but to get the most out of the places they go to. A character with a high passive investigation could logically deduce the ideal location for a secret door, but still needs to make the check to find it.

Just make sure that your party doesn’t skill check swarm key locations and passives can be a useful indicator on skills that you can focus on when designing challenges for your PC’s. The only passive check the players need to worry about is passive perception against stealth- although they can ask if their passives in other skills would grant them additional information.

[Tanarii]

It’s my opinion that passive scores should be used (almost) exclusively by DM’s to reveal information that the player’s characters would not know to check for. An example of this would be:The purpose of passive checks is for the player to avoid having to roll dice unnecessarily (thus "passive"), or when the player can't know a die was rolled or what the result was. But any information gained from a passive check should be identical to what they could have gained with a successful rolled check.

The repetitive clause of passive checks definitely result in the player not having to say over and over again "I search the corridor for traps as we go down it" or "I keep watch for enemies", as those two are explicitly assumed (as threats) per the PHB. If you as a DM choose to assume the PCs are automatically doing other things the player doesn't state, like searching specific areas for {insert random things they can find here}, or {insert Arcana, Religion, or other Lore clue here}, there's nothing wrong with that.

But personally I prefer player state what their character is doing repetitively, other than watching for threats. I've had players declare they're doing something (usually analyzing something spread around an adventuring site) that results in using passive history, religion, nature or arcana instead of passive perception for the duration. I've even used passive Athletics and passive Acrobatics checks before, although it's rare that the circumstances come together where there is no consequence for failure except lost time, they can't just take ten times as long, and they don't need to know if they can't proceed in a given moment (ie combat).

And of course you can gate information behind passive lore checks at any time by making it "secret info", the player can't even know they're making a lore check. But again the info gained should be identical to if they had succeeded on a rolled check.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The repetitive clause of passive checks definitely result in the player not having to say over and over again "I search the corridor for traps as we go down it" or "I keep watch for enemies", as those two are explicitly assumed (as threats) per the PHB. If you as a DM choose to assume the PCs are automatically doing other things the player doesn't state, like searching specific areas for {insert random things they can find here}, or {insert Arcana, Religion, or other Lore clue here}, there's nothing wrong with that.

I tend to agree with this, especially when a player invests into feats to go with this.

If you've taken Dungeon Delver, you can bet at my table that I'm going to tell you if you've spotted a trap. If you've taken Observant I'm probably not going to make you roll to eavesdrop on somebody.

I personally have made a character who basically had a spidey sense. By the time he hung up his cloak of displacement he had a passive investigation/perception score of 27/26 respectively. The DM understood why I'd made the character like that and gave me as much information as he thought I should know. Minor aside to that, the character had no sense of smell or taste (in food or fashion), so those kinds of checks were automatically failed. He was one of my favorites to play.

[Tanarii]

If you've taken Observant I'm probably not going to make you roll to eavesdrop on somebody.
My point was more: are you going to make the player tell you when they're trying to eavesdrop on someone? Or just assume they are?

"I'm paying attention for threats" is, in effect, the default activity assumed by the PHB. So personally I assume they default to keeping watch and looking for traps while they move around, unless they tell me what they're doing, either as new default, temporary or otherwise, or in the specific. ie I generally ask players to tell me anything else they're doing instead of keeping watch / scouting. I don't assume they are searching areas of a room / bodies, or visually scanning a room for signs of secret religious symbology hidden in the wall murals, or mapping. IMO that's important, because those activities are things you're doing instead of watching for danger.

Obviously I always tell them what they can see at a glance without further investigation. And I'm also talking about dangerous situations here, ie adventuring.

(As a note most of my groups designate at least one person to default to keeping watch for ambushes no matter what else they're doing, like looting bodies or ransacking a room for concealed treasure caches. That way there's no confusion like: oh we didn't mean the entire group when we said we loot the bodies, obviously one person was still on watch.)

[Xeko]

The main reason to use passives is, like others have said, when the players shouldn't even know there's something to roll for. For example, if the players are walking down a trapped hallway. If they're walking along, and then halfway down the hallway, you suddenly ask them to stop and give you a perception roll, for no clear reason, they are going to be instantly suspicious, and it is likely to affect their next actions, regardless of if they succeeded on the roll or not. But, by using their passive perception, you can either tell them directly that they notice a trap if their passive is high enough, or you can just keep quiet if their passive is too low. No rolls necessary, and the players are unaware of what just happened, especially if they failed, and triggered the trap.

People have said earlier in this thread that a character must actively be doing something in order to benefit from their passive scores. That is generally true for most passive skill scores, a character has to actually be thinking about a puzzle for their passive investigation to apply. But I feel as though Perception is the exception to that. After all, a character is ALWAYS hearing and seeing the things around them. They are always "perceiving". Especially a battle hardened adventurer in the midst of the wilds, surrounded by all manner of dangerous critters. So, I feel like almost all perception checks are done passively. The only time to actually roll would be if the character is straining their senses beyond what they normally (passively) perceive. Squinting to see something far away, or straining to hear someone who is whispering. Outside of spying, scouting, and eavesdropping, though, perception checks are pretty much all passive.

[Tanarii]

People have said earlier in this thread that a character must actively be doing something in order to benefit from their passive scores. That is generally true for most passive skill scores, a character has to actually be thinking about a puzzle for their passive investigation to apply. But I feel as though Perception is the exception to that. After all, a character is ALWAYS hearing and seeing the things around them. They are always "perceiving".
If you're doing something else other than watching for threats, you can lose your passive perception, your ability to notice them. Examples given in the PHB are Foraging, Tracking, Navigating, or Mapping. This establishes the precedent that your character needs to be "actively" perceiving for passive perception to apply.

[Xeko]

If you're doing something else other than watching for threats, you can lose your passive perception, your ability to notice them. Examples given in the PHB are Foraging, Tracking, Navigating, or Mapping. This establishes the precedent that your character needs to be "actively" perceiving for passive perception to apply.

Well, there's also the modifiers to account for. If you are dashing, it's a -5 to your passive perception. If you are in the dark, it's another -5. Angles and slopes within a dungeon effect the passive as well. I wouldn't consider them being focused on something as them losing their Passive all together, more taking a penalty. Even when you are asleep, you can still hear the things around you, and still be woken by a snapping twig nearby. A creature would need to be deaf, blind, and numb to have 0 passive perception.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My point was more: are you going to make the player tell you when they're trying to eavesdrop on someone? Or just assume they are?

It depends on what other activities are being done or how they've built their character. Like I said, if they've made a feat choice (Observant, Dungeon Delver, even Actor) I'd be more likely not to ask for a roll and just take a passive check unless it wasn't going to pass.

I suppose it doesn't really matter if I'm just taking their passive score, characters who haven't invested in such feats are unlikely to notice anything aside from hushed conversation happening around them at the tavern.

I don't assume what they're doing unless given precedent to make those assumptions. The only default assumption I make from the very start is that they're doing their best to be aware of incoming danger, otherwise I wait for a prompt. If they constantly make statements like "I investigate the room/loot the corpse/hit on the barmaid" I might move to a passive check in most cases. There are conditional assumptions as well, just one example would be if they've gone around town looking for specific information and take a break at the tavern I might also assume that they'd still be listening at the tavern for that information, despite not actively running around the town at this point looking.

[Tanarii]

A creature would need to be deaf, blind, and numb to have 0 passive perception.
Like I said, per the PHB adventuring chapter, if you undertake other activities instead of trying to notice threats, you don't get to use your passive perception. Not passive perception = 0, you just flat don't get to use it at all. That makes this statement provably wrong.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Well, there's also the modifiers to account for. If you are dashing, it's a -5 to your passive perception. If you are in the dark, it's another -5.

Wouldn't you need a house rule for stacking disadvantage for that? Or is this a case of the writers forgetting that -5 is disadvantage for passives and treating them as cumulative modifiers, against their own design principle? (Considers Observant.) Yeah, sorry, carry on.


Like I said, per the PHB adventuring chapter, if you undertake other activities instead of trying to notice threats, you don't get to use your passive perception. Not passive perception = 0, you just flat don't get to use it at all.

I wouldn't say that's generally true. If some hobgoblins try to sneak up on you while you're cooking/looting/hitting on the barmaid, the DM should still feel free to roll a contested Stealth vs Perception check, maybe giving you disadvantage on your passive depending on circumstances. You don't lose the check by default just because you're doing anything other than look out for threats.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wouldn't you need a house rule for stacking disadvantage for that? Or is this a case of the writers forgetting that -5 is disadvantage for passives and treating them as cumulative modifiers, against their own design principle? (Considers Observant.) Yeah, sorry, carry on.

Moving fast is -5, darkness is disadvantage (a different -5). This is the same logic that allows observant to stack with Keen Senses or some magic items (Robe of Eyes).

I think the designers intended it this way (compare Dungeon Delver to Skulker), but that could just be my own assumption.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't say that's generally true. If some hobgoblins try to sneak up on you while you're cooking/looting/hitting on the barmaid, the DM should still feel free to roll a contested Stealth vs Perception check, maybe giving you disadvantage on your passive depending on circumstances. You don't lose the check by default just because you're doing anything other than look out for threats.
Again, your last statement is provable not true by raw.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Again, your last statement is provable not true by raw.

If you want to be technical, this rule applies specifically to your activity while traveling. It doesn't strictly apply to activities during downtime, rest or most importantly social interactions.

Expanding further, the only specific examples listed are those 4 that you mentioned. Anything else would be under the DM's discretion, so activities such as cooking, looting and "wooing" are not always going to disable your passive perception.

Here's the reference for those wondering:

Chapter 8: Adventuring
Activity While Traveling
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.

Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.)

Draw a Map. The character can draw a map that records the group’s progress and helps the characters get back on course if they get lost. No ability check is required.

Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for tracking.)

Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for foraging.)

[Nagog]

I try to describe the area in detail and mix in elements of relevant things along with bits of extraneous or useless information. Think Tolkien's writing style, but much, much, MUCH less long winded. Then, if they decide to look into things, ask what exactly they're looking for or looking through. You can openly describe a room and some of the obvious details, and the player decides to roll Investigation. Rather than have a blanket Investigation check, have the player decide OOC what exactly they're investigating, like a desk previously described to be in the room. If blanket rolls are a thing, the only real challenges to the game come in combat, which is already fairly straightforward unless the DM decides the party needs to be tactical about it.

[Tanarii]

If you want to be technical, this rule applies specifically to your activity while traveling. It doesn't strictly apply to activities during downtime, rest or most importantly social interactions. Traveling is the Exploration pillar. So everything except Combat (which has its own rules) and Social Interactions (which is talking, and also has its own rules). But good point a second later in your post, I often overlook there is also ...


Expanding further, the only specific examples listed are those 4 that you mentioned. Anything else would be under the DM's discretion, so activities such as cooking, looting and "wooing" are not always going to disable your passive perception.... Downtime, which again, has its own rules.

The only time "watching for a threat" vs "other activity" is relevant is the Combat (when you're always watching, but passive is still used for Hide actions, and also has the Search action to find something passive missed) and Exploration pillar. The latter definitely includes looting. Wooing is a social interaction in which watching for threats isn't relevant, and cooking is offscreen, unless it's onscreen at which point it's part of Exploration.

And it's clear that "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." It then gives four example, and explicitly says you can do other activities with the DMs permission (instead of watching for danger). Looting bodies or tossing a room for treasure would be two things I "give permission" to do while traveling in a dungeon (Exploration), as does pretty much every other DM I know.

[Xeko]

The only time "watching for a threat" vs "other activity" is relevant is the Combat (when you're always watching, but passive is still used for Hide actions, and also has the Search action to find something passive missed) and Exploration pillar. The latter definitely includes looting. Wooing is a social interaction in which watching for threats isn't relevant, and cooking is offscreen, unless it's onscreen at which point it's part of Exploration.

The point is, you are acting as though you only get your passive when you explicitly state that you are looking out for danger, and anytime you aren't actively looking for danger, you don't get your passive, when the rule actually says the opposite. The rules imply you always get your passive, unless you explicitly state that you are NOT looking out for danger. It is always on, unless you turn it off. And you are acting as though it is always off, unless you turn it on.

[Tanarii]

The point is, you are acting as though you only get your passive when you explicitly state that you are looking out for danger, and anytime you aren't actively looking for danger, you don't get your passive, when the rule actually says the opposite. The rules imply you always get your passive, unless you explicitly state that you are NOT looking out for danger. It is always on, unless you turn it off. And you are acting as though it is always off, unless you turn it on.
No, I am stating the PHB assumes your characters default to watching for danger when exploring. When exploring, if you declare you are doing something different, that's instead of looking for danger.

But that's a far cry from assuming your character is "passively always looking", which is a statement made by people who typically assume that means literally always on. It just means the character is defaulting to watching for threats as their activity of choice. Which is a good assumption, since it saves all sorts of DM/player arguments about if they were or weren't.

As always, it's important to remember that the word "passive" in passive checks has nothing to do with if the character is active or passive. It has to do with if the player is rolling dice or not. The character isn't being passive, the player is. That includes passive perception.

[Xeko]

As always, it's important to remember that the word "passive" in passive checks has nothing to do with if the character is active or passive. It has to do with if the player is rolling dice or not. That includes passive perception.

Is that even true, though? Have you never noticed something when you weren't paying attention? Isn't that exactly what something "catching your attention" even is? You can be engaged in an activity, but that doesn't mean you are blind to what is happening around you. The difference between "noticing" something and "finding" something is that when you "find" something, it implies you were looking for it, but if you "notice" something, you just happen upon it, without trying. That is what passive perception is, as opposed to active perception. That is exactly why the Observant feat grants a bonus to Passive perception, but not active perception. Because your passive perception is a measure of your awareness of your surroundings when you are passive, not actually paying attention. If it's true that passive perception only applies when your character is actually looking for something, then how would you explain Observant only applying to passive scores, and not active scores? Shouldn't it apply evenly to both?

[Tanarii]

Is that even true, though?
Yes. The PHB tells us so. The very first sentence of Passive checks says "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls."

Despite the mistaken assumption many folks make, "passive" doesn't mean the character isn't doing something. It means the player isn't rolling any dice. In fact, it's usually active on the part of the character ... one of the two primary purposes is when your character is "a task done repeatedly", with the primary example being "searching for secret doors over and over again".

[Xeko]

Yes. The PHB tells us so. The very first sentence of Passive checks says "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls."

Just becomes something doesn't take dice rolls doesn't mean they are actively doing something. Those are two unrelated statements. And, it does not answer my question regarding Observant. How can there be boosts to passive scores, but not active scores, if they both amount to essentially the same thing on the character's part, and are only "passive" for the convenience of the player?

[Maelynn]

Like I said, per the PHB adventuring chapter, if you undertake other activities instead of trying to notice threats, you don't get to use your passive perception. Not passive perception = 0, you just flat don't get to use it at all.

I wouldn't say that's generally true. If some hobgoblins try to sneak up on you while you're cooking/looting/hitting on the barmaid, the DM should still feel free to roll a contested Stealth vs Perception check, maybe giving you disadvantage on your passive depending on circumstances. You don't lose the check by default just because you're doing anything other than look out for threats.

There's a difference between not able to use passive perception and losing the check - it just means that you're required to roll for perception and aren't allowed to use your passive score to determine if you succeed.

Say the DC is 10 and the PC's passive perception is 12. However, they're distracted by doing something and aren't keeping an eye out for threats, then they don't get to use the passive score to auto-succeed. They'll need to roll. Say they roll 9, then they don't meet the DC and lose the check.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If you want to be technical, this rule applies specifically to your activity while traveling. It doesn't strictly apply to activities during downtime, rest or most importantly social interactions.

Also to quote PHB 177: "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." It then goes on to prescribe an unmodified active vs passive contest as the normal case.


There's a difference between not able to use passive perception and losing the check - it just means that you're required to roll for perception and aren't allowed to use your passive score to determine if you succeed.

Say the DC is 10 and the PC's passive perception is 12. However, they're distracted by doing something and aren't keeping an eye out for threats, then they don't get to use the passive score to auto-succeed. They'll need to roll. Say they roll 9, then they don't meet the DC and lose the check.

That's the first time I ever see that proposed. Note that it is often beneficial to roll instead of use your passive, namely in all the cases where your passive score wouldn't be enough.

There's really no such thing as being prohibited from making a passive check yet allowed to make an active one. The DM decides whether you have a chance to notice something or not, depending on in-world circumstances. If this is resolved in a check or contest, those are active or passive, a purely mechanical distinction.

[mephnick]

I still can't believe in 2019 people still think Passive vs Active has anything to do with the character. It's literally just if your DM makes you roll or not. "Actively" looking for danger is still handled by a passive check. C'mon people.

[Xeko]

I still can't believe in 2019 people still think Passive vs Active has anything to do with the character. It's literally just if your DM makes you roll or not. "Actively" looking for danger is still handled by a passive check. C'mon people.

The argument is, do you still benefit from your passive when the character is NOT "actively" looking. To which I, and the phb, say yes.

[Maelynn]

The argument is, do you still benefit from your passive when the character is NOT "actively" looking. To which I, and the phb, say yes.

To me, there's a nuance between 'not actively looking' and 'actively doing something else'. In the latter case, you'd be distracted.

[Tanarii]

The argument is, do you still benefit from your passive when the character is NOT "actively" looking. To which I, and the phb, say yes.
That's not really the argument. But also where?

The argument is if you're doing an activity other than looking from threats, do you still get to use passive perception? The answer is no during Exploration (aka traveling), and you're always assumed to be looking for threats Combat.

Meaning, you're so-called argument is ultimately irrelevant to playing the game.

[Xeko]

That's not really the argument. But also where?

A few different places, but the easiest one to point out (because it's already been quoted in this conversation) is page 177. "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." It doesn't say anything about "except when they are doing something else" or "except during travel". It directly says that creatures can perceive things, even when not trying to.

[Tanarii]

A few different places, but the easiest one to point out (because it's already been quoted in this conversation) is page 177. "When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." It doesn't say anything about "except when they are doing something else" or "except during travel". It directly says that creatures can perceive things, even when not trying to.Thanks. That's helpful.

The other activities rule is more specific than this rule. It says you don't get to use passive perception when you're doing other activities. if you don't get to use it, then it doesn't matter if you aren't searching or not. You don't get to use it.

[Bjarkmundur]

How about "Passive checks are things your brain does automatically, without requiring any special focus or effort. Seeing, thinking, remembering, and reading body language and facial expressions are all instantaneous and mostly subconscious actions. Noticing a supposedly empty room smells like wet were-rat, that a room in a dungeon is slightly breezier than the ones that came before it, or recognizing a person from a painting you saw last campaign are all examples of passive checks."

[Xeko]

The other activities rule is more specific than this rule. It says you don't get to use passive perception when you're doing other activities. if you don't get to use it, then it doesn't matter if you aren't searching or not. You don't get to use it.

So you keep saying, but you haven't provided evidence of such. So I am forced to assume you mean the same passage someone else quoted earlier.


Chapter 8: Adventuring
Activity While Traveling
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.

The passage continues to list examples.

But, see the problem with that passage, is that it refers to GROUP passive checks ("These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats"), it is only that way, when looking at it in the context of taking the passive perception of the entire party. The rules for Group Checks are found on page 175 of the PHB. But "not contributing" is not the same as an auto-fail, which is what you're trying to suggest.

[Coffee_Dragon]

How about "Passive checks are things your brain does automatically, without requiring any special focus or effort. Seeing, thinking, remembering, and reading body language and facial expressions are all instantaneous and mostly subconscious actions. Noticing a supposedly empty room smells like wet were-rat, that a room in a dungeon is slightly breezier than the ones that came before it, or recognizing a person from a painting you saw last campaign are all examples of passive checks."

"Passive checks are checks where 10 is substituted for the result of a die roll for reasons of secrecy or convenience."

That's literally it.

[Maelynn]

"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats"), it is only that way, when looking at it in the context of taking the passive perception of the entire party. The rules for Group Checks are found on page 175 of the PHB. But "not contributing" is not the same as an auto-fail, which is what you're trying to suggest.

The 'group's chance to notice' is not the same as a 'group check'. The passage prior to this, 'Noticing Threats', describes how a DM can determine which group member is able to (use their passive score to) notice an enemy nearby. If one of them notices a threat, the group as a whole is alerted. The section on group checks (p175) describes something entirely different, as well as stating that this thing doesn't happen often. Considering a group's chance and a group check to be the same is imho a misunderstanding of the wording used in the section 'other activities'.

[Demonslayer666]

It's fine to use it that way if you wish. However, just for reference, passive and active in the rule book are referring to the player being passive or active in terms of rolling dice and not to the character. There are lots of examples out there. A good one is in the Lost Mines of Phandelver at the beginning where the characters are walking along a trail. If the characters say they are staying alert and watching for traps then they may notice the trap based on passive perception. If their passive isn't high enough or they aren't looking then they have to make an active roll to see if they notice the trap before setting it off.

Stating that you use passive when the character is being passive and not doing anything runs into issues with the observant feat that increases passive perception and investigation by 5. Using passive checks when the character is passive results in a character with observant being better at noticing things when they aren't looking than when the character is actively looking ... which really doesn't make any sense.

However, play how you like :)
If I assume that players are "on alert" when adventuring in a dangerous area without them having to explicitly say so, then it works out just fine.

[Tanarii]

If I assume that players are "on alert" when adventuring in a dangerous area without them having to explicitly say so, then it works out just fine.
Hopefully the characters are too. :smallamused:

But yeah, that's the (explicit) assumption, both when traveling around / exploring, and in combat. The only thing is there's a special (and explicit) case when traveling around that if you tell the DM doing something other than being "on alert", you don't get to use passive perception. Along with four common examples.

"Tossing a room for treasure" or "looting the bodies" weren't given as explicit examples. I've clearly established that they're other activities IMC, and I think it's a good idea. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if a player objected if a DM suddenly declared a character doing them was surprised without any prior warning.

[Demonslayer666]

Hopefully the characters are too. :smallamused:

But yeah, that's the (explicit) assumption, both when traveling around / exploring, and in combat. The only thing is there's a special (and explicit) case when traveling around that if you tell the DM doing something other than being "on alert", you don't get to use passive perception. Along with four common examples.

"Tossing a room for treasure" or "looting the bodies" weren't given as explicit examples. I've clearly established that they're other activities IMC, and I think it's a good idea. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if a player objected if a DM suddenly declared a character doing them was surprised without any prior warning.

lol, yeah, thanks. :) I did mean characters.

I have trouble wrapping my head around "you can't use perception if you do anything else" while traveling. That seems to me more like a case for being distracted. Oh well.

[tchntm43]

I use passive perception with stealth (this is according the PH rules for surprise) where the passive perception essentially becomes the DC for the opposing stealth role. I'm not sure if passive checks are used the same way with any other situations, but it's the best purpose of passive checks.

I use active perception checks when there is something they might notice but aren't looking for, and there's a listed DC. I don't like passive checks combined with set DC, because then there is no element of chance at all.

Investigation is for them stating that they are actively searching. I always use active checks for these.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I use passive perception with stealth (this is according the PH rules for surprise) where the passive perception essentially becomes the DC for the opposing stealth role. I'm not sure if passive checks are used the same way with any other situations, but it's the best purpose of passive checks.

I use active perception checks when there is something they might notice but aren't looking for, and there's a listed DC. I don't like passive checks combined with set DC, because then there is no element of chance at all.

Investigation is for them stating that they are actively searching. I always use active checks for these.

How would you handle a character taking the Observant(+5 to Passive Investigation and Perception) or Dungeon Delver(Advantage on Investigation and Perception checks to notice traps, which equals a +5 to passive checks) feat then? Passive checks aren't intended to be solely for perception, I'd wager that Perception is generally the only one on the character sheet because it has use in combat.

[tchntm43]

How would you handle a character taking the Observant(+5 to Passive Investigation and Perception) or Dungeon Delver(Advantage on Investigation and Perception checks to notice traps, which equals a +5 to passive checks) feat then?
Dunno. I'd probably tell the player that, because of how I handle such checks, those feats aren't going to be as useful as they might seem in print, and therefore they should take that into consideration.

Passive checks aren't intended to be solely for perception, I'd wager that Perception is generally the only one on the character sheet because it has use in combat.
I know. The reason I use passive perception isn't that it's the only one on the sheet, but that it is used in combination with rolling dice for opposing stealth checks. I dislike passive checks in most other cases because they take away chance for failure/success. If I create a scenario where the DC requiring a passive check is 15, and I also know that the highest passive check in the party is 16, then I might as well just have created the scenario to say that the party automatically succeeds at doing what they want to do.

My players like rolling dice. They like knowing that there is a chance for someone really bad at something to miraculously succeed, and vice versa regarding proficient characters and failure.

[Tanarii]

lol, yeah, thanks. :) I did mean characters.

I have trouble wrapping my head around "you can't use perception if you do anything else" while traveling. That seems to me more like a case for being distracted. Oh well.

It's pretty clearly a case of you're on watch (default), or you're doing some other engrossing activity. Of course, some of the activities you'd expect to be looking around as you do it. Navigating must involve staring at a map a lot ... :smallamused: