Random Thought: Passive Perception Only?

[GreatWyrmGold]

As anyone who's played 5e knows, Perception is the most-rolled skill. Not surprising; nearly every attempt to notice, locate, or otherwise be aware of something in the environment uses Perception. Sometimes you roll Investigation, but the best answers I've been able to find on the subject say you only roll Investigation when you have some kind of information about what you're looking for and explicitly ask to use it (and/or DM fiat); in practice, Investigation is almost never used.
This leads to a situation where nearly everyone chooses to be proficient in Perception, and anyone who doesn't is making either a conscious choice not to make their character perceptive or a mistake. This is not an ideal game design situation. It gets worse when you realize that skills (and most, though not all, things which you roll) are generally used to accomplish active tasks, while most Perception rolls are passive. Overall, it's an odd situation.

I was mulling over this earlier, when I thought of a solution that 5e already has. Strike the "passive" out of Passive Perception Score, give everyone their proficiency bonus and Wisdom modifier, and leave it at that. Anything which can be seen at a glance makes a Stealth roll or equivalent; anything which needs to be searched for actively needs an Investigation roll. (Naturally, anything which grants proficiency in Perception would need to be changed to Investigation, or maybe grant "expertise" on Perception rolls.) Optionally, strike one skill proficiency from every character to balance the books.
This would remove the "trap option" of not being proficient in the skill you'll likely roll more often than all other skills combined, while also clarifying the use of Investigation and removing rolls for non-action events. Bonus, it also connects Perception's Wisdom-based-ness to Wisdom's association with intuition instead of mostly just being its own thing.

I'm curious what others think of this idea, which is why I'm posting it here.

[Tanarii]

Passive perception isn't necessarily passive on the characters part.

That common misconception aside, it's not a bad idea to eliminate perception as a skill and make 'Perception' a fixed DC of 10+prof+Wis all characters have as Stealth/ surprise 'defense'. Character looking for things repeatedly or against secret rolls (searching for traps/secret doors as they travel down corridors) can use Passive Investigation, which is something that can generally be done anyway, at the DM discretion. The latter also makes it standard for Rogues to be the Int-based trap finders they should be.

The only question becomes using a combat action to find a hidden creature that successfully makes its Stealth check vs the 'defensive' fixed DC, that you know is there and are looking for. That's the most common correct use of a rolled Perception check, since it's one of the few times you have a time dependent scenario in which the task isn't being done repeatedly and the check doesn't need to be secret from the player. Investigation can work for that too. But it seems a little janky when creature detection 'defense' is Wis-based and 'offensively' it's Int-based.

[Xeko]

Investigation can work for that too. But it seems a little janky when creature detection 'defense' is Wis-based and 'offensively' it's Int-based.

Well, just because skills and tools have a default ability score associated with it, that does not mean that they must always use that ability score. It is possible to use a wisdom based investigation. Simply roll a wisdom check, and if you are proficient in Investigation, add your proficiency. I once had a DM ask for a Charisma based Jeweler's Kit check. The Jeweler's tools are typically dexterity based, but in this particular instance, I was engraving a message, a short poem, with the intent to seduce or persuade. So charisma was the skill the DM asked for, to account for penmanship and word choice.

In the same way, Perception is the skill to use when you're just scanning an area for anything out of the ordinary, anything that stands out. Investigation, meanwhile, is when you're looking for something specific. You know there is something there, you just can't see it, so you look for clues that might tip you off. Now, if you are using your brain to come up with the answer, like thinking to check for an extra pocket on the inside of a corpse's coat, then that's a regular everyday intelligence based investigation. But, if you are using your standard senses, hearing, sight, scent, to help tip you off to someone you know is there, but just can't see, then wisdom based Investigation is a valid option.

If an enemy that the character knows is there, manages to break line of sight, and then attempt a stealth roll, and the character responds by actively looking for the enemy (and you're insisting on not using Perception as a skill), then that is the exact scenario to use a wisdom based investigate.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Passive perception isn't necessarily passive on the characters part.
Almost nothing is 100% passive on the character's part. Defense is the obvious example; your AC is an unchanging number, but it represents your character actively dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. The only solid dividing line is whether the action is active or passive on the player's part.


The only question becomes using a combat action to find a hidden creature that successfully makes its Stealth check vs the 'defensive' fixed DC, that you know is there and are looking for. That's the most common correct use of a rolled Perception check, since it's one of the few times you have a time dependent scenario in which the task isn't being done repeatedly and the check doesn't need to be secret from the player. Investigation can work for that too. But it seems a little janky when creature detection 'defense' is Wis-based and 'offensively' it's Int-based.
That goes back to the whole "Wisdom for unconscious intuition" (ie, passive perception) vs. "Intelligence for active deduction" (ie, active investigation) thing I alluded to making up. It's not a perfect dividing line, but there aren't any between Wisdom and Intelligence, and I feel it works better than just sticking most sensory stuff under Wisdom for some reason.

[Tanarii]

Almost nothing is 100% passive on the character's part. Defense is the obvious example; your AC is an unchanging number, but it represents your character actively dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. The only solid dividing line is whether the action is active or passive on the player's part.Well I guess we'll just have to agree to agree then. :smallamused:


That goes back to the whole "Wisdom for unconscious intuition" (ie, passive perception) vs. "Intelligence for active deduction" (ie, active investigation) thing I alluded to making up. It's not a perfect dividing line, but there aren't any between Wisdom and Intelligence, and I feel it works better than just sticking most sensory stuff under Wisdom for some reason.I think it'd work fine as Perception Defense Score vs Stealth specifically, and Investigation being treated as a normal skill for all other searching and looking, both passive check and rolled checks for it.

Of course, that will result in Investigation becoming the new must have often used as passive skill, but only for trap and secret door finders. But my view of it is being colored by the fact that I already almost always default to Perception vs creatures and Investigation vs Traps & Secret Doors.

[hymer]

I'm curious what others think of this idea, which is why I'm posting it here.
Making no-rolls the only way to use a skill has a profound effect on what it feels like to players. If one PC has +6, another +5, and the rest +0, the +5 will mostly feel no different in use to the ones with +0. +5 never notices anything first, and if the +6 PC fails, there is no point in +5 even trying, although they are technically almost equally able.

It also feels different for the DM. You are choosing which PCs will fail and which ones will succeed rather than setting a DC that may or may not be passed.

[Malbrack]

This thread brings up an issue I've had with making the best use of perception when I am DMing:

What is the right amount of description to use to hint that a player should try making an active Wisdom (Perception) check to notice something not in plain sight?

If you don't give hints that a trap or secret door or some other hidden object of interest is nearby, then one of two things happen. 1. Your players miss important stuff. If they're going to miss most of the hidden doors and objects, why bother putting them in? That seems like a lot of work put to waste. 2. Your players become paranoid and want to make Wisdom (Perception) checks every step they take. I played in a game where the DM didn't give much of an indication of when a good time to make Wisdom (Perception) checks would be, so I ended up making dozens of checks while moving through the dungeon, just in case. It was tedious and slowed the game down unnecessarily.

Passive perception works fine vs. stealthed enemies because they have to roll, so the result isn't always the same. However, if I use passive perception to determine if the party finds something hidden or not, it doesn't work as well because the result will always be the same. Since I already know the party's highest passive perception number, I am still designing content they either find or don't find.

I started giving vague clues in key areas, so that the players would figure out to use a Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) check. I'd say something like, "You notice that something seems off with these stairs." If they passed their ability check, I'd tell them about the trap. If they failed, I wouldn't give them any more information, but they'd still know that there was a potential for there being a trap on the stairs. This made sure they didn't miss anything important, but this veered toward roll-playing. They knew something was there, but if they didn't roll high enough they couldn't do anything about it. The good thing with this method is that it makes sure players have a chance to interact with all the traps and hidden objects in the dungeon that I think are fun / important. The bad thing is that it removes a lot of the mystery in exploring the dungeon.

The other option seems to be to put the hints into the narrative somehow. For example, maybe they find a clue on one of the corpses that mentions a trap door in the maintenance room. That way the players know to make an active search when they get there. This seems like a good system, but it might get gimmicky after a while. How many notes leading to secrets can you use before it feels overdone?

Anyway, I know this is kind of long winded, but I am curious how other DMs work in searching for hidden things (traps, doors, items, etc.) in an organic way. I don't want players to ever feel like I screwed them in a gotcha! moment. (You've checked to see if the door was trapped the last 187 times, but this time you forgot. Gotcha! No, that's bad.) Yet I also don't want it to be automatic that the players always find everything; otherwise, what is the point of having Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) checks? How do DMs balance between too little and too much information / guidance with players exploring dungeons?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Of course, that will result in Investigation becoming the new must have often used as passive skill, but only for trap and secret door finders. But my view of it is being colored by the fact that I already almost always default to Perception vs creatures and Investigation vs Traps & Secret Doors.
By moving what are, in my experience, the majority of Perception checks out of the realm of skills entirely, Investigation becomes a much less "this is the one skill everyone needs" than



Making no-rolls the only way to use a skill has a profound effect on what it feels like to players. If one PC has +6, another +5, and the rest +0, the +5 will mostly feel no different in use to the ones with +0. +5 never notices anything first, and if the +6 PC fails, there is no point in +5 even trying, although they are technically almost equally able.

It also feels different for the DM. You are choosing which PCs will fail and which ones will succeed rather than setting a DC that may or may not be passed.
That's how Passive Perception already works, yes. Aside from the idea that there's some "feeling" to "active use" when the DM checks a number without informing the players, probably after rolling an enemy Stealth check.
I'm a bit confused by your objection in general. Is it a bad thing that the DM will know for sure that the party will be able to see some critical clue? Is the player agency involved in getting to roll a die to see if you progress that important, rather than just a mechanical farce? Or are you ignoring how I specified that actively looking for something, which is the only time a feeling of agency would actually matter, would fall under a different skill, which would still be rolled as normal?



This is true for any skill.
That's just not true. It doesn't matter if my character doesn't pick up a proficiency in Animal Handling or Medicine or Performance or Sleight of Hand; those checks are basically never going to come up for any character not specializing in them. And you don't need to think about not picking up Athletics, History, Stealth, etc; skill challenges for those skills, while not rare, are also not terribly common, and 90% of the time you only need one expert to pass them.
Perception is different. In my experience, it's usually rolled more often than all other skills combined, unless a player is going out of their way to poke around with one skill. It matters for all characters, in all kinds of games. It's like if a wizard had to choose two between proficiency with daggers, proficiency with staves, and proficiency with spells; they're all useful, but one is so much more obviously useful that not picking that one without specific reason can only be called a mistake.

[HappyDaze]

The best solution in my mind is to not require Perception to be used any more than other skills. I've seen DMs allow lots of climbing and such without Athletics and lots of talking without Persuasion (or Insight when receiving information) so do the same with Perception. The mistake is in the overemphasis on Percpetion, and that is something a DM can (and, in my opinion, should) fight.

[Malbrack]

I was mulling over this earlier, when I thought of a solution that 5e already has. Strike the "passive" out of Passive Perception Score, give everyone their proficiency bonus and Wisdom modifier, and leave it at that. Anything which can be seen at a glance makes a Stealth roll or equivalent; anything which needs to be searched for actively needs an Investigation roll. (Naturally, anything which grants proficiency in Perception would need to be changed to Investigation, or maybe grant "expertise" on Perception rolls.) Optionally, strike one skill proficiency from every character to balance the books.
This would remove the "trap option" of not being proficient in the skill you'll likely roll more often than all other skills combined, while also clarifying the use of Investigation and removing rolls for non-action events. Bonus, it also connects Perception's Wisdom-based-ness to Wisdom's association with intuition instead of mostly just being its own thing.

I'm curious what others think of this idea, which is why I'm posting it here.

A few things here. First, if it "can be seen at a glance," then there should not be any ability check. Wisdom (Perception) checks are for difficult to notice things.

Second, my problem with passive perception to notice hidden objects (traps, doors, etc.) is that the results are always the same. If the highest passive perception in the group is 15, then there are things your group finds (those that require a 15 passive perception or lower) and those your group does not (those 16 or higher). At that point, why even have a passive perception for finding hidden objects? It kind of sounds like you want to go back to the distinction between Spot (Wis) and Search (Int) in 3e.

Third, this kind of ties in with my discussion earlier. How much information should a DM just tell players in order to instigate active Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) checks?

[Tanarii]

I played in a game where the DM didn't give much of an indication of when a good time to make Wisdom (Perception) checks would be, so I ended up making dozens of checks while moving through the dungeon, just in case. It was tedious and slowed the game down unnecessarily.
You're Doing It Wrong(TM)

Seriously though, that's exactly what Passive Checks were designed to replace.

I hear what you're saying on fixed passive perception scores vs fixed DCs. That potentially has some probably unintended consequences, and others have raised the issue before.

But as far as your question on hint goes, remind the players a character has to be in a position to observe something to use their passive perception, and look in the right place. Walking down a corridor looking for traps on the floors, ceilings and walls? That's what passive scores are designed for. Looking at the walls of a room and getting upset because your DM didn't let you find the hidden drawer in the desk on the other side of the room? You shouldn't need a hint to figure that one out.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A few things here. First, if it "can be seen at a glance," then there should not be any ability check. Wisdom (Perception) checks are for difficult to notice things.
I'm not making the distinction between "easy to see" and "hard to see," I'm making the distinction between "can be seen without detailed investigation" and "can only be found if you poke around". A small key on a crowded desk can be seen at a glance, but it won't always be seen immediately. A small key hidden in a book will never be seen


Second, my problem with passive perception to notice hidden objects (traps, doors, etc.) is that the results are always the same. If the highest passive perception in the group is 15, then there are things your group finds (those that require a 15 passive perception or lower) and those your group does not (those 16 or higher). At that point, why even have a passive perception for finding hidden objects?
You're making a few big mistakes.
First, you're assuming that there should be a real chance that dice rolls alone dictate whether or not the players get to advance the plot or whatever by finding The Thing. Sure, they can pump their Perception checks by a point or two when they invest in Wisdom or tank it a few by not being proficient, but that only results in a 5-20% difference in their odds of success. Relying so much on random rolls over player action is bad game design.
Second, you're assuming that bonus hidden treasure chests and whatnot can be found without actually trying. That rewards the players for rolling good and nothing else. No, in this system they'd only be found if the character is actively looking for something, at which point they'd roll Investigation and things would proceed as normal.
Third, you're assuming the Perception score would only be used for finding objects with a fixed Stealth score, when I specifically mentioned rolling Stealth in the post you quoted.


It kind of sounds like you want to go back to the distinction between Spot (Wis) and Search (Int) in 3e.
More like I want Search to have a purpose, now that Listen and Spot (already two of the most important skills in the game) have been rolled into one skill that also cannibalized some of Search thanks to fuzzily-defined skill distinctions.

[Malbrack]

You're making a few big mistakes.
First, you're assuming that there should be a real chance that dice rolls alone dictate whether or not the players get to advance the plot or whatever by finding The Thing. Sure, they can pump their Perception checks by a point or two when they invest in Wisdom or tank it a few by not being proficient, but that only results in a 5-20% difference in their odds of success. Relying so much on random rolls over player action is bad game design.
Second, you're assuming that bonus hidden treasure chests and whatnot can be found without actually trying. That rewards the players for rolling good and nothing else. No, in this system they'd only be found if the character is actively looking for something, at which point they'd roll Investigation and things would proceed as normal.
Third, you're assuming the Perception score would only be used for finding objects with a fixed Stealth score, when I specifically mentioned rolling Stealth in the post you quoted.


Wait, so you want traps, doors, and hidden keys to make Dexterity (Stealth) checks? Do they even have a Dexterity ability score?

And wouldn't this also make it to where the party's progression is locked behind a dice roll? Instead of an active Wisdom check, their progress would be gated by an object's Dexterity (Stealth) check or an active Intelligence (Investigation) check?

[Bjarkmundur]

Since I already know the party's highest passive perception number, I am still designing content they either find or don't find.

The idea is great, but this is where it falls flat.

For my game I combined insight and investigation into Deduction. As it stands, investigation is a way of putting together pieces of a puzzle to reach a conclusion, and perception is something your brain does 'automatically' to notice something. To me, personally, these simply sound like two methods of the same thing, noticing a hidden detail. In my game we use the following:

Perception
Receive information from the environment using your senses (I SEE there's a creature camouflaged as a rock)
Deduction
Interpret newly received information using deductive reasoning (I EXPECT, based on the creatures described characteristics, it is a fey)
Knowledge
​I remember previously received information (I KNOW fey means it is likely it uses enchantments and illusions)



Based on Malbrack's hint-and-search method, one could argue that he uses no perception checks (the hints are automatically supplied) and only investigation checks (we need to investigate whether the hint bears any weight behind it). Which is an interesting idea. Remove perception, and just use Wisdom (investigation) and Intelligence (Investigation).

[RSP]

The idea is great, but this is where it falls flat.


Not necessarily. Players still have the ability to state what their characters do and DMs still have the ability to grant Advantage (+5 to Passive rolls).

So, yeah, a DM could create a situation where no as-is PP scores will notice something, but if the characters take the right action, they do (from the +5 Advantage).

“This falling flat” is only true if the be all, end all of noticing stuff is contained in the skill check.

For example, a key is hidden on the underside of a drawer in a desk. DM decides an 18 Passive Inv check will find it (though, currently the highest PC PI is 16). If the extent of the Players interaction is to state “I look through the desk,” then they won’t find the key, due to the DC. However, if they come up with something more creative that ends up giving them Advantage, they will. Likewise, if a Player states their character specifically checks the underside of the drawers, the key will be found with no check required. Locate Object or the Warlock Invocation that grants x-ray vision would work as well.

Also note: DMs have the ability to make impossible to pass skill checks, including Perception checks, whether or not you use any of these methods.

[GreyBlack]

Well, then there comes the question of "why have perception in the first place when you can just tell the players the lay of the room and have them ask questions." It's the old OD&D/AD&D model; the DM describes the room and the players describe how they investigate it as opposed to just telling them to roll perception.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It has advantages. It rewards player intuitiveness and problem solving skills, but it can leave some players in a rut. Alternatively, it makes the dungeon exploration more a game of, "Let our specialized room searcher look at a room and everyone else just go to lunch until combat." No one would need to worry about searching the room and everyone else can min max their combat or social prowess.

To me, it's a bit antithetical to 5e's mission statement of encouraging teamwork, but not so antithetical that it couldn't work. So try it out?

[Beleriphon]

Well, then there comes the question of "why have perception in the first place when you can just tell the players the lay of the room and have them ask questions." It's the old OD&D/AD&D model; the DM describes the room and the players describe how they investigate it as opposed to just telling them to roll perception.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It has advantages. It rewards player intuitiveness and problem solving skills, but it can leave some players in a rut. Alternatively, it makes the dungeon exploration more a game of, "Let our specialized room searcher look at a room and everyone else just go to lunch until combat." No one would need to worry about searching the room and everyone else can min max their combat or social prowess.

To me, it's a bit antithetical to 5e's mission statement of encouraging teamwork, but not so antithetical that it couldn't work. So try it out?

5E kind of goes both routes. The rules make it clear that either, or both options, are correct depending on what you as a group want. So want to go "I flip open every book on the shelf and shake it to see if stuff falls out" and "I want to use a skill to try find everything my character can find, tell me DM what you think works for that" are both valid approaches. In one the player has explained what they are doing, and if there is something to find they find it, in the second the player is explaining intent and is working with the DM to determine what if any abilities and proficiencies are in play.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Wait, so you want traps, doors, and hidden keys to make Dexterity (Stealth) checks? Do they even have a Dexterity ability score?
No, that's what Investigation is for. Why do I have to keep explaining this?


And wouldn't this also make it to where the party's progression is locked behind a dice roll? Instead of an active Wisdom check, their progress would be gated by an object's Dexterity (Stealth) check or an active Intelligence (Investigation) check?
As opposed to gating it behind a player's active Perception check? Personally, I think it's bad adventure design to put the one and only way forward in a place nobody will notice unless their skill and/or luck are sufficient, regardless of if you find it via Perception, Investigation, or Persuasion.

[GreyBlack]

No, that's what Investigation is for. Why do I have to keep explaining this?


As opposed to gating it behind a player's active Perception check? Personally, I think it's bad adventure design to put the one and only way forward in a place nobody will notice unless their skill and/or luck are sufficient, regardless of if you find it via Perception, Investigation, or Persuasion.

Fun fact of the day: I find myself asking for Investigation checks more than Perception checks at the table; when you're actively looking in a room for loot and such, I use Investigation whereas looking for monsters and such tends to be Perception at my table.

[AHF]

I rely on investigation for many search type activities as well. I think it fits archetypal narratives (think Sherlock Holmes who is quite intelligent but not particularly wise or others like Sean Spencer) and puts a better balance for players between the Wisdom stat (which is useful for many things) and Intelligence stat (which is useful for very little if you don't give Investigation a chance to shine).

[dejarnjc]

I think perception should always be active because I hate the idea that one player always spots everything and one player always misses everything.

I also think that perception, along with several other skills, should usually be a DM only roll where the DM rolls some die, checks the PCs modifiers (which the DM would have in front of him already) and then informs the players if there's a success. Lotta people don't like this idea though.

[GreatWyrmGold]

1. FWIW, active rolling doesn't solve that problem. I'm DMing a Pathfinder game, and there are only two characters who make Perception checks with meaningful regularity. Bounded skill checks help with that somewhat, but that runs into the problem of...
2. ...bad luck letting players miss critical information, which is bad. Heck, even players missing useful information (or useful equipment, or useful-to-avoid traps) out of pure dumb luck is bad.
3. Investigation rolls.

[Trickery]

I personally think it's a good idea. Perception makes more sense as a passive skill and investigation an active skill. If you're making a conscious effort to look for anything that's hidden, like a hidden enemy, then it isn't your perception being tested anymore, but your skill at investigating.

[Tanarii]

I personally think it's a good idea. Perception makes more sense as a passive skill and investigation an active skill. If you're making a conscious effort to look for anything that's hidden, like a hidden enemy, then it isn't your perception being tested anymore, but your skill at investigating.In non-game terms, I agree. Perceiving tends to be something people do without extra effort, and soon as they put in effort they engage their brain and start thinking about what they're looking at. That's also why I like it.

In game terms, passive checks have nothing to do with if the character is passive, and there is no such thing as an "active skill".

This change wouldn't do anything in regards to (for example) Passive Investigation being the score you use if you're checking for traps. It would however make it clear Passive Investigation is the skill you'd default to if your character was standing in the doorway of a room surveying it for anything secret & potentially of interest (other than stealthy creatures).

Edit: For the record I also think rolling traps "hidden" value (as 1d20+bonus) vs characters passive investigation, either in advance or on the fly, isn't a terrible way to deal with the fixed passive score vs fixed DC issue. Although it can still give away that something happened, unless you like rolling dice randomly and periodically to scare your players. For stealth, it's a non issue, because it's initially Stealth roll vs passive score, then if follow up is desired roll vs previously established stealth DC.

[Trickery]

In non-game terms, I agree. Perceiving tends to be something people do without extra effort, and soon as they put in effort they engage their brain and start thinking about what they're looking at. That's also why I like it.

In game terms, passive checks have nothing to do with if the character is passive, and there is no such thing as an "active skill".

This change wouldn't do anything in regards to (for example) Passive Investigation being the score you use if you're checking for traps. It would however make it clear Passive Investigation is the skill you'd default to if your character was standing in the doorway of a room surveying it for anything secret & potentially of interest (other than stealthy creatures).

If I understood the intent correctly, the idea was to use passive perception for passively noticing things (like stralthed enemies or traps when moving through a room without checking first), but to always use an investigation check when the players made an active effort to look for something.

Basically, we'd replace all of the current published perception checks with the DM checking passive perception, then always ask for an investigation check if the players actively look for something.

Did I misunderstand that? It seemed reasonable the way I understood it, but I may be going off on my own little tangent here.

[Tanarii]

If I understood the intent correctly, the idea was to use passive perception for passively noticing things (like stralthed enemies or traps when moving through a room without checking first), but to always use an investigation check when the players made an active effort to look for something.
Sorry you're correct, that appears to have been the original proposal. I got tied up in my counter thoughts later in the thread of the 'correct' use of passive scores meaning this wouldn't eliminate passive investigation. But it would if that's explicitly part of the change.

(Just for clarity, when you say 'players made an active effort" do you mean 'players declared ...' or 'characters are making an effort in game ...'. Player vs character is an important distinction when discussing rolled ability checks vs passive scores.)

[Trickery]

Sorry you're correct, that appears to have been the original proposal. I got tied up in my counter thoughts later in the thread of the 'correct' use of passive scores meaning this wouldn't eliminate passive investigation. But it would if that's explicitly part of the change.

(Just for clarity, when you say 'players made an active effort" do you mean 'players declared ...' or 'characters are making an effort in game ...'. Player vs character is an important distinction when discussing rolled ability checks vs passive scores.)

For simplicity, I'd personally just check passive perceptions unless a player said their character was looking for something, at which point it'd be an investigation check. I actually like this idea quite a bit.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If I understood the intent correctly, the idea was to use passive perception for passively noticing things (like stralthed enemies or traps when moving through a room without checking first), but to always use an investigation check when the players made an active effort to look for something.

Basically, we'd replace all of the current published perception checks with the DM checking passive perception, then always ask for an investigation check if the players actively look for something.

Did I misunderstand that? It seemed reasonable the way I understood it, but I may be going off on my own little tangent here.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I'm glad someone understanded (and then posted in a way that made their understanding crystal-clear, which relieves me of the frustration caused by trying to repeat the same things to different people several times).

[georgie_leech]

For simplicity, I'd personally just check passive perceptions unless a player said their character was looking for something, at which point it'd be an investigation check. I actually like this idea quite a bit.

It wasn't until I read a few published adventures that I realized this wasn't the way designers expected things to work.

[Tanarii]

For simplicity, I'd personally just check passive perceptions unless a player said their character was looking for something, at which point it'd be an investigation check. I actually like this idea quite a bit.
The downside is this means you're rolling investigating checks for an entire corridor when the player tells you the character is searching for traps. Which is both a task done repeatedly and a secret (from the player) roll. Precisely what Passive checks were designed to replace (multiple rolls; something the player cannot know the result of).

[GreatWyrmGold]

The downside is this means you're rolling investigating checks for an entire corridor when the player tells you the character is searching for traps. Which is both a task done repeatedly and a secret (from the player) roll. Precisely what Passive checks were designed to replace (multiple rolls; something the player cannot know the result of).
Why do you need to roll for every stretch of corridor that you know is untrapped? Maybe a couple, just to keep players on edge, but every stretch of corridor?

(Also, insert the same complaints others had about my proposed system.)

[Tanarii]

Why do you need to roll for every stretch of corridor that you know is untrapped? Maybe a couple, just to keep players on edge, but every stretch of corridor?

(Also, insert the same complaints others had about my proposed system.)
Are you rolling for the players (which some find unacceptable)? Do you randomly choose if they get to roll when there is something to detect? Or roll when there is something there but only sometimes when there isn't? How do you handle players rolling but seeing the result is low?

These are all the issues Passive scores are designed to handle. You're tossing out the baby with the bath water by eliminating the concept.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Are you rolling for the players (which some find unacceptable)?

The downside is this means you're rolling investigating checks for an entire corridor when the player tells you the character is searching for traps.
Sounds like.



Do you randomly choose if they get to roll when there is something to detect? Or roll when there is something there but only sometimes when there isn't? How do you handle players rolling but seeing the result is low?

These are all the issues Passive scores are designed to handle. You're tossing out the baby with the bath water by eliminating the concept.
Wait...by extending the reach of Passive Perception, I'm re-introducing problems that were fixed by its introduction?

[Tanarii]

Sounds like.



Wait...by extending the reach of Passive Perception, I'm re-introducing problems that were fixed by its introduction?
You're not extending it. You've limited it to hiding creatures. Then you're saying everything else is an investigation but must be rolled check, eliminating passive as an option

Unless I misunderstood?

Edit:
I think the important question that highlights my concern is how would you handle the difference when there is a trap, between a player saying their character:
A) walks down the hallway
B) walks down the hallway drawing a map
B) walks down the hallway searching for traps

If the last one is "roll investigation check(s)" you've broken passive scores.

[ad_hoc]

As anyone who's played 5e knows, Perception is the most-rolled skill.

I play 5e and it is not the most 'rolled' skill for me.

It does get used more than any other skill, but mostly as Passive Perception.

Maybe that is what you meant?

[Nagog]

You're not extending it. You've limited it to hiding creatures. Then you're saying everything else is an investigation but must be rolled check, eliminating passive as an option

If the last one is "roll investigation check(s)" you've broken passive scores.


The downside is this means you're rolling investigating checks for an entire corridor when the player tells you the character is searching for traps. Which is both a task done repeatedly and a secret (from the player) roll. Precisely what Passive checks were designed to replace (multiple rolls; something the player cannot know the result of).

I've always liked the idea of having a passive Investigation score as well as Passive Perception, with Rogues having a higher Passive Investigation due to Trapfinding. When you roll on behalf of a character, some players associate the sound of dice being rolled with the cue to start looking for things, perception or Investigation. Having each of those as passives helps the surprise of a surprise round feel more real, and the triggering of a trap less of a single individual's fault.

As for the kind of players who roll multiple times for one thing because they did not roll well the first time, I houserule that you have to wait 5 minutes out of combat to roll it again.


And i gotta say, I am SO GRATEFUL for things like Insight, Investigation, and Perception being different rolls. Pathfinder has like 30 different skills, but the only one at all that has anything to do with locating something or noticing something is Perception. Even Insight was re-branded to Sense Motive, which is alltogether too specific to be used regularly as a substitute.

[ad_hoc]

I've always liked the idea of having a passive Investigation score as well as Passive Perception, with Rogues having a higher Passive Investigation due to Trapfinding.

Every ability check can be passive.

The only difference with Perception is that it is usually has its own place on character sheets as it comes up more often.