D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Cadence]

This is, at best, a poor interpretation of their own rules. Passive checks are nice because they avoid repetitive rolling that players might otherwise ask for, particularly if you require an action declaration. The passive roll sets the DM up to bypass that need for something that should be an ongoing process - observing the environment around the PCs.

The page talking about it is: Does passive perception supersede active perception?

If they would have noticed.on a passive roll, should they have been told they spotted it before they even got to request a roll (assuming they were progressing in there usual fashion, and that includes trying to keep an eye on the surroundings?).

 

[Cadence]

A passive check is used when a character is performing a task repeatedly (and that task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure) or if the DM wants to keep the adjudication secret for some reason. In the case of traveling, the characters are performing tasks, such as keeping watch for danger, during the journey. But this is still something they have to say they are doing and then the DM can use the passive check to resolve whether the PCs in a given spot in the marching order can notice a trap, hazard, or lurking monster.

Thank you for the references on active checks, they matched what I found after your prompting me to look!

For passive checks, pg. 240 of the DMG makes it sound a bit looser about when they get one. The Wizard who "is running, not paying attention to what's ahead of him" gets one, albeit with disadvantage.

 

[iserith]

Thank you for the references on active checks, they matched what I found after your prompting me to look!

For passive checks, pg. 240 of the DMG makes it sound a bit looser about when they get one. The Wizard who "is running, not paying attention to what's ahead of him" gets one, albeit with disadvantage.

Like any holy book, the DMG has some inconsistencies.

 

[Cadence]

Like any holy book, the DMG has some inconsistencies.

Or is it at least as likely that it shows something about what was meant by the authors' choice of wording in the PhB, and that they would have chosen firmer wording if they wanted to rule out the interpretation in the example they actually did choose for demonstrating their intent? (Even ignoring that, is "not paying attention" the same as "oblivious to"? Or is someone running, and looking ahead aware of things on at least some level? If someone is actively trying to study their spellbook, do they get no chance to hear a building collapse next door?)

 

[Flamestrike]

He knows that her name is the same as a character from the books. He assumes, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, that she is the same character, and that the DM hasn’t changed any details about her. That’s the player knowledge side of the equation. The character does not know anything about this character, but suspects she might be a lich.

He suspects her to be a Lich based on that player knowledge that his character does not have.

He wouldnt hold that suspicion but for that player knowledge.

 

[Charlaquin]

He suspects her to be a Lich based on that player knowledge that his character does not have.

I thought we were supposed to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate. If so, whether the player “knows” her to be a lich or not (which, again, he doesn’t for sure) shouldn’t have any bearing on what the character thinks.

He wouldnt hold that suspicion but for that player knowledge.

Says who? That’s a perfectly plausible thing for the character to think.

 

[Charlaquin]

I played in one group where one of the players actually typed up the results of the previous session story style as if it were chapters in a book the PCs were the main characters in. It feels like someone reading those notes as if they were a book might get a different impression if the outside of game knowledge was used in some ways. On the other hand, some might just wonder why anyone would think the a game session could make something close to a story a person could read like a book.

“Fortunately, Excelsior was well-read in many subjects, including the ecology of such monsters as this one. He called out, ‘use your torches! Only fire can do lasting harm to this beast!’”

or

“We all marveled as Ragnar’s attack seared the monster’s flesh. With naught but a lit torch, he had done more serious harm than could have been dealt by the keenest blade. Perhaps some primal instinct had driven him, for he seemed as surprised as we at this sight. Nonetheless, I whispered praise to the gods and began lighting a torch of my own, as did our other companions.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Does it say in 5e that's the only time? (Are the others explicitly prohibited by RAW?).

The paragraphs on ability checks in the social interaction section says the DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction. Can I ask for one just in response to the.character saying something, or allowing a pause?

In a social interaction, an in-character statement is kind of an implicit statement of action. The preceding “I say” is taken as a given, and the following “in order to [insert goal here]” is often clear from context and content of the statement.

On the other hand, the rules on noticing threats while traveling are quite explicit about using the passive check. So spotting something while traveling a long ways is always passive? (Even if the players say they will be trying to actively keep there eyes out for things as they travel, because that's repeatedly doing it which is what passive checks are about). [Googling around to a Crawford podcast, I was interested to see that one can never do worse than their passive perception value - it acts as a floor. Which is nice that there's no penalty for trying an active one.]

Crawford’s statements about the intent of passive Wisdom (Perception) seem at odds with the rules as written on passive checks, which say they are for representing the average result of an action being performed continuously over a period of time (such as actively keeping an eye out for danger whilst traveling or repeatedly searching for secret doors while traveling in a dungeon), or when the DM wants to determine whether the characters succeed at something secretly (such as when a monster tries to sneak up on them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or is it at least as likely that it shows something about what was meant by the authors' choice of wording in the PhB, and that they would have chosen firmer wording if they wanted to rule out the interpretation in the example they actually did choose for demonstrating their intent? (Even ignoring that, is "not paying attention" the same as "oblivious to"? Or is someone running, and looking ahead aware of things on at least some level? If someone is actively trying to study their spellbook, do they get no chance to hear a building collapse next door?)

Well it’s inconsistent either way. The question then becomes, what is the best way to resolve the inconsistency, and in my opinion, the answer is by interpreting the text in the way that invalidates the least amount of text, or that is most consistent with the text taken as a whole.

 

[billd91]

The page talking about it is: Does passive perception supersede active perception?

If they would have noticed.on a passive roll, should they have been told they spotted it before they even got to request a roll (assuming they were progressing in there usual fashion, and that includes trying to keep an eye on the surroundings?).

This is part of the conceptual problem. They talk about it as something that doesn't turn off or on so it should apply, right? But that becomes a problem in that you're tossing away 45% of the potential outcomes (or 70% if you are Observant) of a die roll that could present worse outcome - and should if the check were rolled. I think this is one place where the 5e rules are unnecessarily murkier than either 3e or 4e which both were explicit about Taking 10, where it was useful for efficiently running a game, and (in 4e's case) how it really relates to a passive check. And that murkiness leads to the idea that the passive check should be a floor on a perception or investigation check - or apparently any other check they could or should be a passive check (I'd argue for anything related to simply observing or reacting to outside stimuli such as insight and any of the knowledge skills for identifying the furry beast galloping across the meadow at the adventuring party) because the passive approach would never be "turned off" and should apply in all circumstances.
But it's not that at all - it's an administrative rule convenience so that the DM doesn't need to make the PCs roll for spotting lurking monsters or for the PCs constantly searching for traps down dungeon hallways or searching for secrete passages in all of an adventuring site's chambers. It's not something a player can actively rely on when they say "That statue is in an odd place - I want to examine it for hidden features."