D&D General Feat Observant

[Iry]

It might be Crawfords most contested ruling.

Personally (as the DM), I use Passive Perception when nothing really exciting is happening and active perception when there is something important going on. Just wandering around the city not expecting anything immediately? Travelling down a road on a weeks long journey? Passive. Creeping around an occupied dungeon? Fleeing from the guards? Active.

 

[James Gasik]

Whether or not you accept Crawford's ruling, (I can see his logic, but the implementation is clunky), the way Observant is written implies that they are meant to be used often. This isn't what White Wolf would call "automatic success" (ie, a scenario where you don't need to roll because your abilities meet a certain threshold). Any time you walk into a room, this is the default level of detail you should perceive without having to make a die roll.

Making a check, therefore, is you actively looking around and searching for something out of the ordinary, and this probably should take some time as you scan the area and poke about.

Generally, I only ask for die rolls when players peform some action that they could reasonably fail, and that has real downsides to failure; if someone wants to search a room for an hour, I see no reason to make them roll, and will probably just give it to them- there's only so many places or ways to hide something.

It speeds up play immensely when players dictate when rolls are made by their actions. Like if you want to chat with a town guard for basic information, a passive Charisma check seems perfectly acceptable to me, where it's pretty rare they will instantly tell you to buzz off.

You want to use your Thieves' Tools to open an ordinary lock, QED. I've found this approach works well, as players are less inclined to look at their sheet and go "oh I'm bad at X, I better not even try".

Now if you're trying to convince a guard to come with you to investigate someone in an alley, without backup, that's a die roll, and failure will most assuredly raise suspicion.

Another good reason to do this with Perception and Investigation is to avoid having the players slowly creep about, rolling dice for every 10' section of dangerous dungeon, which slows down the game immensely. Of course, in order to actually speed up play, I do prod them to roll when there is a trap or hidden door to see- it's sort of necessary or we might as well go back to the days where you carry around 10' poles and such.

 

[Li Shenron]

As well said by others, if your group uses passive checks rules, the Observant feat grants a +5 bonus only when the Perception and Investigation skills outcomes are resolved by a passive check, but not when they are resolved by a regular check i.e. roll of a dice.

Edit: That said, it is confusing, because the feat bonus (+5) only applies to passive checks, which means the PC is often better off not requesting an active one (and he's better off if the DM often uses passive checks to detect stealth and the like, so the feat can be a bit campaign dependent)! Likely the intent was to negate disadvantage on passive checks and/or provide a free level of advantage (though as written it also STACKS with advantage).

That's an interesting interpretation of the RAI, I haven't thought of that before. It could be a good adjustment to the Observant feat for a group that decides not to use passive checks.

And yes, it is definitely campaign dependent. My players are certainly not better off not requesting a check, but that's because I don't typically just let them "request a check" out of character, I prefer them telling me what their characters are doing, and I can rule very differently depending on whether they do something generic ("I search the whole room") vs something specific ("I look behind the curtains"). I make this example because it is a no brainer: if there's something behind the curtains and you tell me your PC is looking there, you get an automatic success; if you stay generic, I only give you a chance i.e. a check. And I won't let you complain that your character surely would have been smart enough to figure it out: it made its check, and pretty much failed to figure it out.

Correct. In theory the DM should have already performed a passive check before calling for a roll, but I've found some DMs just don't like passive checks and ignore them. I think the primary reason is that the rules aren't explained on how to use them, with the sole exception of perceiving someone hiding. I think the secondary reason is that with expertise and feats like Observant, a character's passive score can get really high.

Well that's the theory of one way to interpret and play these rules, but the books don't really say that every character should be granted passive checks all the time!

Even if you don't completely ignore passive check rules, one sort-of intermediate approach (between never allowing them and granting them all the time) is to allow them only when a character is doing something repeatedly, which is the only narrative explanation of passive checks explicitly provided by the book.

A similar but more restrictive option, is to grant passive checks when a character is doing something repeatedly AND the player has actually declared it: "I keep searching for traps while we're in this area" would grant passive perception checks for that purpose, but not necessarily to simultaneously notice hidden doors or monsters.

Also, Jeremy Crawford adds the following:

"Passive Perception is an option that a DM chooses to use or not.

That's actually the best past of JC advice. Had "Passive Checks" been clearly labelled as optional in the PHB or even better in the DMG (and then the Observant feat could have been moved to that section too) there would have been a lot less sour feelings and arguments about whether and how to use these rules at all.

Of course, what Jeremy Crawford says about passive perception pretty directly contradicts what the PHB says on page 175, that passive checks “represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.”

Basically, passive checks are poorly named. They’re for when you do something continuously over a period of time, or when the DM wants to resolve a check in secret. Saying they act as a floor for ability checks doesn’t make sense, since ability checks and passive checks are used in different situations, at least according to the rules as written.

Completely agree.

It has also been pointed out before that if JC's ruling was RAW, then the Rogue's high level "Reliable Talent" would be useless. So there's a class ability and a feat which in a sense assume two very different ways of using a core rule in order to be worthy. That's pretty much a proof that the whole passive checks rules weren't really though carefully during game design, but were thrown into the game more because of legacy habits.

Generally, I only ask for die rolls when players peform some action that they could reasonably fail, and that has real downsides to failure; if someone wants to search a room for an hour, I see no reason to make them roll, and will probably just give it to them- there's only so many places or ways to hide something.

Another good reason to do this with Perception and Investigation is to avoid having the players slowly creep about, rolling dice for every 10' section of dangerous dungeon, which slows down the game immensely.

I do the same thing and often don't ask for die rolls but just grant automatic success, if the players have the right idea.

But the "player rolling dice every 10'" could be also solved by making a single roll for the whole section (or even the whole dungeon, if there's just a trap or two).

The real reason why many DMs hate passive checks, is because they make the outcome non-random, and therefore make it up to the DM to pre-decide what secret doors will be found, what locks will be open, and so on.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The way I have always interpreted Crawford's Passive Perception explanation is thus:

Assuming a DM is using the passive perception rules (like I do)... If someone is hiding, the first thing the DM does when the PCs show up is check their passive perceptions. If their PPs are higher than the DEX (Stealth) check of the creature hiding, then the PCs notice the creature. This is their "general awareness" or "danger sense" or "intuitiveness" or however you wish to describe it narratively. That sense we all kind of have when we just like subconsciously perhaps think something isn't right or something's odd when we enter an area.

Now if their PPs are lower than the check, then they didn't notice anything off-hand. At that point it is then up to the players to decide or feel like there might be something to see, and thus they can say they begin actively searching the area. At that point the DM can have them roll WIS (Perception) checks for their searching. Now because the DM has already checked for Passive Perception-- which is 10 plus WIS and/or proficiency bonus... any Perception check rolls the players make that roll less than 10 on the die do not matter because the DM has already indicated that they didn't find anything (because the passive perception would have already picked it up.)

That's the idea of the "floor"-- when you roll a Perception check after the DM has already determined Passive Perception found nothing... the only rolls that matter are the ones that are over 10, because those are the rolls that will give you higher results than what your Passive Perception gave you. Rolling under a 10 on the die just means your active searching wasn't any better than your "initial impression" you got of the area when you first arrived. You can't do "worse" than a 10, because that 10 was assumed when the DM checked Passive Perception. As a player, you know that if you rolled a 9 or less, that if there is something there to be found it's Stealth check needs to have been higher than your Passive number.

Now does the rogue's 'Reliable Talent' feature not give you anything for Perception or Investigation checks if the DM uses Passive Perception (or Passive Investigation)? Yeah, I think you could make that claim (since the 10 you'd automatically get on the Perception check roll through Reliable Talent is the same 10 you get automatically from Passive abilities). But the advantage of Reliable Talent of course is that this gives ALL of the Rogue's proficient skills essentially the same effect as Passive Perception and Passive Investigation. That "free 10" on your check. The difference being that the DM won't make those other checks for you just for showing up in the area (unlike Perception and/or Investigation), you'd still have to say you were doing something to warrant the DM telling you to make a check.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The real reason why many DMs hate passive checks, is because they make the outcome non-random, and therefore make it up to the DM to pre-decide what secret doors will be found, what locks will be open, and so on.

This is why I personally oftentimes make rolls for determining the DCs needed to find secret doors or traps. I determine for myself who probably installed that door or traps, what their INT (Mechanics) check might be-- "Mechanics" is my own skill I add to my games for all mechanical and engineering types of knowledge and skill-- then I'll roll a d20 and add the bonus (plus sometimes with Advantage if I think the person had help designing/installing these things or if they just had the time to really work on it.) Then whatever the roll plus modifier equaled, that's the DC to find said door or trap.

Maybe it ends up being lower than the Passive Perceptions of all the PCs, maybe not. But at least it's not determined outright whether they will be found through PP. (Although honestly I don't really keep track of what stats the players have on their sheets, so I don't think I could auto-decide if I wanted to, as I don't really know off-hand what their Passive Perceptions are anyway.)

 

[Shiroiken]

That's actually the best past of JC advice. Had "Passive Checks" been clearly labelled as optional in the PHB or even better in the DMG (and then the Observant feat could have been moved to that section too) there would have been a lot less sour feelings and arguments about whether and how to use these rules at all.

How could they be optional? Not only are they specifically listed as being used for finding a hidden creature, but they're used for the most common travel activity. Instead of being optional, it really just needs to be clarified on how to be used.

The real reason why many DMs hate passive checks, is because they make the outcome non-random, and therefore make it up to the DM to pre-decide what secret doors will be found, what locks will be open, and so on.

This goes under my point about there being no instruction on how to use them. A lot of people have made the assumption that you compare a character's passive score against a passive DC, but that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules. I agree that would be awful, which is why I use Mike Mearls suggestion on how to use them (the DM always rolls against a passive score, using DC-12 as the modifier).

 

[Li Shenron]

This goes under my point about there being no instruction on how to use them. A lot of people have made the assumption that you compare a character's passive score against a passive DC, but that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules

I think that's in the DMG, in the sections for searching for secret or concealed doors.

When JC says that passive checks are optional he's not wrong. If you choose to never use them, there's just a few more bits of the game that don't apply (Observant being one if them) but 99% of the game keeps working fine.

After all, there were no passive checks in previous editions. In 3e there was Take 10 and Take 20 but had more explicit requirements.

 

[Shiroiken]

I think that's in the DMG, in the sections for searching for secret or concealed doors.

Not quite

Detecting a Secret Door. Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it. Characters can also find a secret door by actively searching the location where the door is hidden and succeeding on a Wisdom (Perception) check. To set an appropriate DC for the check, see chapter 8.

It never actually say to compare a DC to the passive perception, just "use" the scores. One could easily make that assumption, but the section on passive checks never clarifies how to use them.

After all, there were no passive checks in previous editions. In 3e there was Take 10 and Take 20 but had more explicit requirements.

4E would like a word, and the default assumption people have made are based on how they worked in that edition.

 

[iserith]

How could they be optional? Not only are they specifically listed as being used for finding a hidden creature, but they're used for the most common travel activity. Instead of being optional, it really just needs to be clarified on how to be used.

This goes under my point about there being no instruction on how to use them. A lot of people have made the assumption that you compare a character's passive score against a passive DC, but that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules. I agree that would be awful, which is why I use Mike Mearls suggestion on how to use them (the DM always rolls against a passive score, using DC-12 as the modifier).

A passive check is just a special kind of ability check to resolve a task being performed repeatedly (or when the DM wants a secret roll) which means the standard method of adjudicating actions still applies. Determine if the outcome is uncertain, whether there's a meaningful consequence for failure, and if both are true, set a DC and call for a check. Except in this case, the passive check is used because the task is being performed repeatedly (or when the DM wants a secret roll).

So, sure, it doesn't say explicitly to compare a passive score to a DC, but it doesn't actually need to since it's covered in the method for resolving actions anyway. The character is keeping watch for danger in the front rank while traveling the dungeon, for example, and there's a pressure plate ahead. The DM has determined that it's a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice it. (Or perhaps that's what the module says.) The character's passive Perception is 20, so the DM narrates that they notice it.

 

[iserith]

Of course, what Jeremy Crawford says about passive perception pretty directly contradicts what the PHB says on page 175, that passive checks “represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.”

Basically, passive checks are poorly named. They’re for when you do something continuously over a period of time, or when the DM wants to resolve a check in secret. Saying they act as a floor for ability checks doesn’t make sense, since ability checks and passive checks are used in different situations, at least according to the rules as written.

Right. These rulings often appear to be two things in my view: (1) An admission the person stating the ruling has never read what the rules actually say, or (2) An admission that the rules are so badly written that their meaning cannot be derived from a plain reading (since there's no reasonable way to arrive at the stated ruling by way of the rules). Both of those seem odd to me coming from the game designers.

Not to be confused with someone saying "I prefer to run it THIS way at my table" and departing from the rules. Of course that's just fine.