D&D 5E (2014) Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation

[DND_Reborn]

Is anyone else starting to get a little confused by the three separate stealth/perception threads going on at once right now?

Not if you are making your INT (Investigation) check.

 

[robus]

Once again I’ll protest the terrible word choice of “passive” The PC is not passive, the player is in that the player is not rolling checks for their character.

Ongoing, continuous, steady, anything but bloody passive!

 

[Haffrung]

All of this confusion and complexity around perception (and it's been going for multiple editions now) is due to a fundamental flaw in D&D:

Perception should be an attribute. Whether it should be a 7th attribute, or it should replace wisdom (which I favour), it's lack is a deep flaw in the system. I know a lot of people regard the six attributes are a sacrosanct part of the game, but for me it's a sacred cow that I'd be happy to see killed.

 

[Charlaquin]

All of this confusion and complexity around perception (and it's been going for multiple editions now) is due to a fundamental flaw in D&D:

Perception should be an attribute. Whether it should be a 7th attribute, or it should replace wisdom (which I favour), it's lack is a deep flaw in the system. I know a lot of people regard the six attributes are a sacrosanct part of the game, but for me it's a sacred cow that I'd be happy to see killed.

I mean, Wisdom is functionally the perception attribute in 5e. It encompasses interpersonal awareness as well as sensory awareness, but that’s what its uses cover.

 

[billd91]

I don’t think they are at all. In 4e, use of passive checks is automatic and applied when you aren’t using the skill actively. In 5e, use of a “passive” check is specifically called for by the DM when a task is performed over and over again (and has a risk of and consequence for failure.) It is much closer to 4e’s version of taking 10 than to 4e’s passive check.

That still is pretty much the same thing. The whole idea that you're making discrete tasks again and again rather than the skill being exercised without actively focusing on it is a distinction without a reasonable difference. You pretty much have to be doing something particularly distracting to not get it. Everyone else, even in the somewhat bizarre division of duties in overland travel, who isn't doing something specific has it going by default.

 

[robus]

All of this confusion and complexity around perception (and it's been going for multiple editions now) is due to a fundamental flaw in D&D:

Perception should be an attribute. Whether it should be a 7th attribute, or it should replace wisdom (which I favour), it's lack is a deep flaw in the system. I know a lot of people regard the six attributes are a sacrosanct part of the game, but for me it's a sacred cow that I'd be happy to see killed.

I’m not sure that’s necessary. If we look at animal stat blocks we see they generally have high wisdom scores and low intelligence scores. With that in mind we can extrapolate that perception (a wisdom skill) correlates to examining the natural world and noticing things that are out of place: a strange odor, an odd noise, a breeze in a enclosed area, a mismatched thing. Basically something that triggers a “that’s odd” response.

 

[Umbran]

For myself, I like to think of things like this: Perception is Awareness, Investigation is Understanding.

This is reasonable, with one caveat.

Unless you are really good at writing mysteries, as a GM, you are probably not actively and explicitly describing the world in enough detail to distinguish between the cases much of the time.

I am currently running a gnomish artificer who took the Observant feat. End result is that he's got a passive Investigation score of 23. The character is basically Sherlock Holmes - by the stats he should be able to walk into a place, and without breaking a sweat, rattle off seven details in plain sight that add up to the fact that the killer is hidden behind the arras, and be correct.

The character is smarter than either myself, or the GM. The character lives in the world 24/7, but neither the GM or I do. The character's abilities a putting 2 nd 2 together to get 4 exceed our abilities at creating these chains of clues. So, the GM just generally assumes that outside of combat he can use Investigation, and only cases in which the DC is for some specific and knowable reason very high, does he not notice.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is reasonable, with one caveat.

Unless you are really good at writing mysteries, as a GM, you are probably not actively and explicitly describing the world in enough detail to distinguish between the cases much of the time.

I am currently running a gnomish artificer who took the Observant feat. End result is that he's got a passive Investigation score of 23. The character is basically Sherlock Holmes - by the stats he should be able to walk into a place, and without breaking a sweat, rattle off seven details in plain sight that add up to the fact that the killer is hidden behind the arras, and be correct.

The character is smarter than either myself, or the GM. The character lives in the world 24/7, but neither the GM or I do. The character's abilities a putting 2 nd 2 together to get 4 exceed our abilities at creating these chains of clues. So, the GM just generally assumes that outside of combat he can use Investigation, and only cases in which the DC is for some specific and knowable reason very high, does he not notice.

This is why I treat passive scores the way I do.

As a DM, if I know there is a clue or something a PC might notice, but I don't describe well enough or the player isn't clever enough to connect the dots, I use passive scores. For example, if the DC is 20, and your gnome with a 23 should fine something, I'll ask you to roll. That is not RAW, of course, but I don't want auto-successes. With +8, you have a good chance of making it so I'll let the dice decide.

I also think that because distinguishing between them is often difficult and/or blurred--it should be a single skill, but used with either INT or WIS depending on the bent employed in the situation.

But yeah, Observant can led to really high passive scores. In our 1-20 campaign, my rogue with INT and WIS 18 and Observant had Passive Perception (and Investigation) scores of 31 at level 20. Not the highest possible, but pretty darn good. The sad thing is, with Reliable Talent, the lowest I could even roll was 26s...

At any rate, if passive scores are really "passive" and not "averages or taking 10s" (which they more seem to be), I think they should be 5+modifiers, and Observant would then boost them to 10+ effectively.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Inspired by the Cloak of Elvenkind thread, I've finally decided to address my biggest source of confusion in 5e. Almost seven years in, and I still get occasionally confused about when Passive Perception is used in lieu of normal Perception. It seems to me that it would be when walking by secret doors, noticing traps or ambushes—sort of like the elf's ability to notice secret doors in AD&D, but that begs the question of when does "active" Perception get used and why?) Then there's Investigation. When does it come into play instead of using Perception? When I search a desk, am I using Perception or Investigation? Lastly, why are the rules for these things so virtually non-existent?

So, okay comunity, what are your thoughts on the matter? How have you parsed these things? And where upon the rules do you base your interpretation upon?

DM: "You travel down the 5' wide stone corridor. The walls are slick with water and slimy-moss, the floor, even worse." [secret door here with DC 14; looks at PC's Passive Perception of 12]
Player: "OK, I'll keep walking, but at half rate to keep my footing"
DM: [thinking that moving at half rate is worth a +2 to Passive Perception] "At about 40' down the corridor, something catches your attention. A section of the wall on you right, about 9 or 10 feet of it, seems to have less of that slimy-moss on it"
Player: "Really? Hmmm...I'll stop and raise the lantern a bit to get a better or closer look...do I notice anything?"
DM: "What's your Perception?"
Player: "It's +2"
DM: "Right...[rolls d20, gets 17, +2 is 19]. Now that you are looking, you notice that there are distinct 'lines', pretty much straight, on the left and right of a 6' section. The floor here, by that section, also seems to be cleared of most slime...not nearly as thick. Probably some kind of Secret Door"
Player: "Ha! Ok, I'm going to start looking for bricks or rocks in the wall that are different colours, or smoother, or something. I'm looking to see if it can open from this side"
DM: "You press various rocks that catch your attention...what's your Investigation? Make a check for me..."
Player: "Ok...I got a total of... 15"
DM: "That'll do it! There are two rocks, one on the door, one on the wall next to it; pressing both at the same time results in a satisfying 'CLICK!' and the door opens towards you about one inch. The smell of rotting flesh spills out, choking your nostrils and throat....what are you doing now...?"
..
That is how I run Passive and Active Perception, and Investigation.
Passive it to "notice something that gets your attention". Active when you try and discern what it was that grabbed your attention. Investigation is when you find out exactly what grabbed your attention and now you want to do something about it.

Oh, and yeah, I tend to roll the PC's Active Perception checks. Sometimes others as well, when the binary high/low of the system would give too much info away (re: "Make a Perception"... "Whoot!, with my silly adjustment I have 28!"... "Oh. Uh...you don't notice anything" ... "Cool guys! This area is totally safe...lets camp!"

..
^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Umbran]

This is why I treat passive scores the way I do.

As a DM, if I know there is a clue or something a PC might notice, but I don't describe well enough or the player isn't clever enough to connect the dots, I use passive scores.

So, here's the point I was trying to make: The litmus test, at least in this game, is not "does the GM know there is a clue", but instead, "does the GM expect there might be a clue, whether the GM specifically placed it or not".

We are talking about an excessive case to make the point that the idea that only that which the GM describes is relevant is kind of bogus. Because the GM gives, at best, a sketch of the room, with minimal details. But the PCs should see it in 4k HD, right?

Say the characters are exploring a building. There's a workroom, and hearing the PCs approach, the man in the room hides behind a tapestry. The PCs enter.

The GM can think of the old cliche that the tea in the pot is still warm, from which the PCs can conclude that the person was here recently. But there's probably 17 other indicators that the man likely left behind - boots still by the door, wet ink on a parchment, the quill not put away, the way a chair is subtly turned as the man got up quickly, the little trickle of blotting sand on the floor... which all indicate the man is still here and where he went.