D&D 5E Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation

[loverdrive]

I've just scrapped active Perception alltogether and I'm happy about it.

 

[Haffrung]

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.

It isn't really, though. If it were, Wisdom would be a core attribute for Rogues, not Clerics. Elves would get bonuses to Wisdom. The current incoherent system means Clerics make the best scouts and guards. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Nothing wrong with doing it this way, certainly.

My issue with resolving things thusly is that you require three checks (possibly) and failing anywhere along the way denies the PC progress. Now, how do you handle the concept of "lack of progress instead of failure"? Can a PC "keep looking" and eventually find it? Do they have to fail by 5 to deny them any hope of success?

Another issue is skill clumping (or the lack thereof). Athletics, for example, involves three very different skills: climbing, jumping, swimming for movement, as well as lifting and throwing possibly depending on your view. But, we have perception and investigation (and passives for both) instead of one "Notice" or something skill. We also have Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion; all of which could be clumped into "Influence" just as several skills are clumped into Athletics. After all, you influence others either by deceiving, intimidating, or persuading them-- the result is the same, just the avenue differs.

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".

So, to be clear, you are more thinking along the lines of this:

As DM, I know a man heard the PCs coming and just quickly hid behind the tapestry There will be signs of his movements and it is not important what they are. When the PCs enter, if any have a high enough passive Investigation (?) I will inform the player their PC finds clues of a person recently being there (whatever those clues are) and if the passive Investigation is not high enough, I'll ask for a roll only if the players say they are looking the room over, etc.

Because the GM should know, IMO, whether there might be something there or not--there shouldn't be an "expect"(ation) on the DMs part as I see it--or I am still not getting your point clearly enough.

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?

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, I completely agree with this, which is why passive scores should be used IMO. Other things could be relevant, but even if a PC rolls well enough or has a high enough passive score to find something, it is still up to the DM what those things are (i.e. what is relevant). Or, the DM can gloss over the details and just confirm the final result.

Anyway, this is why I use passive scores as I do. The PCs might notice something the player doesn't think to ask for even after given my description. If the passive score indicates the PC might notice whatever it is, I'll ask the player to make a check. If the roll fails, so be it. If if succeeds, then I'll reveal whatever it is the PC found the player never thought to look for.

Again, my preference is for passive scores to not be automatic. It removes some agency for the player to participate more when they can rely on the PC's passive scores.

 

[robus]

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"

The interesting part you’ve not addressed is, what was the possible consequence of failure in the investigation?

 

[Charlaquin]

It isn't really, though.

It literally is. It says “Wisdom measure(s) perception and insight,” “Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition,” and “A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person.”

If it were, Wisdom would be a core attribute for Rogues, not Clerics.

Traditionalism is a hell of a drug.

Elves would get bonuses to Wisdom.

Wood elves do, and other elves get proficiency in perception (a specific use of Wisdom).

The current incoherent system means Clerics make the best scouts and guards. It doesn't make any sense.

Nobody ever said D&D made sense.

 

[robus]

First point I’d like to make is if the dice are giving you nonsensical answers then you’re asking them to answer nonsensical questions. They are a random number generator not a fortune telling device. Only have the players roll when there is good reason for the outcome of their declared action to be uncertain and there is a cost of them failing. This is why we’re always rolling in combat because everything is pretty chaotic and uncertain (and the cost of failure is the opponents have more chances to hit back!)

So is it right that characters never get active perception against creatures? Only against things like traps?

So with my preamble in mind, what does this mean? Players roll perception against any action that requires using their senses to protect themselves from possible harm or setback, animal, vegetable or mineral.

So if I search repeatedly, I can't do better than my passive. But if I search once, I might beat it?

Again, getting nonsensical results is a sign that your chosen resolution mechanic has gone off the rails.

Searching repeatedly in the same location (with only the cost of time) will locate the item (assuming the DM is not playing games with the players and them waste game time on pointless exercises).

Passive perception (or investigation) is a tool for modeling constant perception in a risky situation that is changing over time (and your PC wants to remain vigilant during that period). For example, traveling, exploring, keeping watch (and yes keeping watch is a situation that changes over time because while the PC is pretty stationary various other creatures are coming and going and making noise and the PC is having to constantly make judgement calls as to whether it is a legitimate threat).

A single check is applied when there is meaningful consequence for failure in that moment. For a search it might be that the PCs have just made it into a study and they need to find an item before the guard returns and notices the light under the door (or whatever). If the check succeeds they find the item and get out before the guard returns. If they fail they need to make a choice of leaving without the item (and eluding the guard) or stay and finish the search (which will now succeed) but with the consequence that the guard is now at the door and rattling the handle (and probably raising the alarm).

 

[Hriston]

Somewhat seconding @Charlaquin here:

It isn't really, though. If it were, Wisdom would be a core attribute for Rogues, not Clerics.

The rogue's shtick is avoiding notice, not being good at noticing others.

Elves would get bonuses to Wisdom.

Wood elves do, and all elves are proficient in Perception which is the aspect of Wisdom that's specifically about noticing things.

The current incoherent system means Clerics make the best scouts and guards. It doesn't make any sense.

You'd have to unpack what you think doesn't make sense. Shouldn't clerics be good at looking out for their flock?

 

[Shiroiken]

The interesting part you’ve not addressed is, what was the possible consequence of failure in the investigation?

Not the original commenter, but IMO the interesting consequence is being unable to open the door. Most people hate that, but there are some puzzle you just can't solve.

 

[robus]

Not the original commenter, but IMO the interesting consequence is being unable to open the door. Most people hate that, but there are some puzzle you just can't solve.

Sure if there is some special key or pattern sequence that searching the rest of the dungeon would reveal and cause an “aha” moment, exploration-oriented players love that. But unable to open it based on a failed skill check when they have plenty of time...?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure if there is some special key or pattern sequence that searching the rest of the dungeon would reveal and cause an “aha” moment, exploration-oriented players love that. But unable to open it based on a failed skill check when they have plenty of time...?

Why not? Haven't you ever lost your car keys or something else, damned no matter how long you look?