D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Charlaquin]

If I say "My character goes over to the bookshelf and runs my fingers over the books" I'm investigating. That is what an investigation looks like. I'm not perceiving. Perhaps I pick up a mug and examine it in close detail. That's investigating. I'm getting in close. This is why the Eyes of Minute Seeing give advantage to Investigation checks, while improving vision up to a foot away.

So, if anything where I get close, touch things, examing in minute detail is investigation, then perception is just... looking. The rules text you just posted says it, "notice things about the environment" that's perception. Again, "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." With that in mind... what action do you take to trigger a perception check, except the action of "looking" or "noticing"

As I said before, ask 5 DMs when they call for perception vs investigation and you’ll get 6 different answers. I don’t agree with your interpretation of perception vs investigation, but I stopped caring to litigate that particular bit of minutia a long time ago. Now I call for a Wisdom check if the action relies on intuition or sensory perception or an Intelligence check if it relies on memory or deduction, and let the player decide if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable. If you tell me you’re running your finger over the books on the bookshelf (for what purpose? You didn’t say. For the sake of expediency I’ll assume maybe you’re hoping to find a false book or hidden catch or something), I’m gonna call for a Wisdom check. If you’re proficient in Investigation and you think that seems appropriate to add your proficiency bonus for, be my guest.

I mean, you would never accept someone stating "I notice the goblin hidden in the corner" as their action. In fact, since the goblin was hidden and they didn't know about it, they could not make that statement. But noticing is the action of perception.

How is the goblin hidden in the corner? If it’s behind some cover or concealment, you’re not going to find it just by looking with your eyes. If it’s just hiding in the darkness, you’re not going to see it unless you have a light source or Darkvision… in which case it wouldn’t be hidden from you. So, I don’t see any way just looking at the corner could result in you noticing the goblin. You are going to have to do something to try and find it, and if that something has an uncertain outcome, I’ll call for an ability check to resolve that.

This is the fundamental problem I have with the repeated assertion that a player saying "I look around" isn't good enough for a perception check, because... what else are they supposed to do? There is no other action for visual perception. The only other conclusion is you want them to narrow the scope, to only attempt to perceive part of something, which leads into my other concern, as I stated.

“I look around” is good enough for a perception check, and since looking around is something a character is always doing (assuming they can see, I guess), they are performing that action continuously over time, so I use a passive check to resolve it, as per the rules. If you want to find out if there is something hidden in the environment that was not revealed by your passive perception check, you’ll need to take another action.

I do see something unreasonable in that exchange. Because the player was clearly trying to use their action to detect a threat, but because they didn't know where the threat was, they automatically failed.

Yes, just like how if I’m trying to find my keys and I don’t know where they are, I will fail if I look in a place that isn’t where they are. That’s… how looking for stuff works.

However, you can't know where a hidden threat is until you spot it. It basically turns perception into extreme three-card monte, where you walk up to someone with three face down cards who has already shuffled them. It is just blind guessing.

Only if the DM doesn’t provide them any information they can use to inform their decisions. This is why telegraphing is important. Players need information to make informed decisions, they need to have a clear picture of the environment to interact with it in meaningful ways.

Which leads to one of two responses from the players

1) They will list every single thing possible, turn over every card, in an attempt to win, This is undesirable, because I do not want to sit through your checklist every time you enter a room.

Again, only if the DM doesn’t make good use of telegraphing, and ideally, time pressure. A source of pressure like regularly-timed checks for wandering monsters or other complications encourage players to be economical with how they decide to spend their characters’ precious time, and telegraphing enables them to do so by giving them enough information to determine what to prioritize.

2) They go vague, and ask to roll perception. Understanding that this fundamentally covers everything they could potentially try and guess, with a single action.

This is undesirable because it puts the burden of deciding what the character is actually doing in the fiction on the DM.

They want to know the things they don't know about the idol.

This is a fundamentally strange question to me. Let us say this is an idol to Shar, but it is made of purple amethyst, which is an important detail because it connects them to a specific cult of Shar. The player asks who the idol is of, and you let them roll and find out about Shar.... but since they didn't ask about if the material was important you aren't going to tell them? They have no idea to even ask that question, so why would you expect them to ask it?

Look, you know what you hope will happen if you succeed on a Religion check or whatever, just tell me what that is. Otherwise, I won’t know if what you hope will happen is possible or not.

Again, this seems to lead into blind guessing games. Can you ask the correct question to unlock the hidden information you don't know to ask for? And I don't see the appeal of this.

You assume that there’s some hidden information I’m locking behind guessing the correct thing to ask for. This is not the case. I will include pertinent details in my description of the environment, because that’s my job as DM. If it’s unusual for an idol of Shar to be made of purple amethyst, and that’s something the character should know based on their background, I’m just going to tell them so. Asking them to roll a check for it would be silly, because checks can fail and if it’s something their character should know, they shouldn’t be able to fail at it. If they want to know something about it that I didn’t include in the description, they’re going to have to tell me what else they want to know because I can’t read their minds. And they’re going to have to tell me how their character might already know that or how they go about trying to learn it so I can determine if it can work or fail to work.

All of those. They want to know all of those things. All of them might be important.

Great, then they should say so. I can’t read their minds.

Why do they need to specifically ask if the idol has been desecrated for you to provide them with that information? The idol is entirely in their mind's eye, they can't see it and compare it to a non-desecrated version they have seen before. Which in IRL they would obviously be able to trivially do. I don't need to specifically ask out loud if a cross has been desecrated, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to tell by looking at it, because I know what a cross looks like to begin with.

If it should be obvious then I’ll include it in my narration.

You aren't asking where they acquired their knowledge of religion (where they got their proficiency), just asking them to imagine where they might have learned information about something they don't know to help reveal details of their backstory... how are those not the same thing?

Because maybe they could have picked that information up somewhere other than where they acquired their proficiency from. People pick up random bits of information from all over the place, not just formalized training. Heck, the character doesn’t even need to have had any formalized training to potentially know something. Saying “Oh, I had a cousin who was a cleric of Shar, do I remember anything else about idols from stories he told me,” even if it’s made up on the spot, provides a bit of fun roleplaying color and gives me something to latch onto to assess if a check is necessary and what the DC should be if it is.

They are expecting they learned the information in the same place they got their other knowledge of religion, which is what gave them proficiency and training in the religion skill.

That’s fine, but they need to tell me that or I won’t know it because I can’t read their minds.

But I want to "detect hidden elements of the environment" and there is no action for that except looking around and noticing hidden elements of the environment.

There is, and characters perform it constantly, hence a passive check being used to resolve it.

Are you saying that you have never had someone roll perception? I can't think of an action to look around for hidden or concealed things, except to say I look around for hidden or concealed things.

Well, again, I call for ability checks and let the player determine if they think one of their proficiencies is relevant. But, back when I would call for skills explicitly, I would generally call for Perception any time I would now call for Wisdom (which is to say. when success hinges on sensory awareness) and Investigation when I would now call for Intelligence (which is to say, when success hinges on deductive reasoning). I actually find myself calling for the former much more often than the latter.

So what does an active insight look like? How can I actively use it instead of passively?
How can they confirm it? You refuse to let them use the skill to confirm it unless they "do something" but there is nothing to do, because the action that constitutes "an effort to read body language or understand someone's feelings" is being relegated to a passive skill that they cannot utilize.

What actions do you expect from them?

I mean I try not to expect anything in particular and simply to respond to what the players do. But, if you want an example of something I as a player might do in response to an NPC being described as unusually sweaty, I might say, “I pay close attention to his body language to see if I can spot any notable tics or tells.” And if a player declared that action, I might have the NPC roll Deception against the PC’s passive Wisdom (Insight) if he lied. Alternatively, I might want to try to learn an NPC’s personality traits, ideal, bond, or flaws, which Insight is explicitly able to be used to do. So, I might say something like “I want to try and figure out this guy’s bond. I’ll start making small talk and try to steer the conversation towards his personal life, paying close attention for if he seems to show any particular attachment to someone or something.” If a player described an action like that, I would most likely ask them to make a Wisdom check, probably against a moderate DC (so 15) unless I had a good reason to go easier or harder, and say “on a failure he’ll catch on that you’re trying to get leverage on him.”

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But as I asked them, what action do you expect me to take to look for hidden elements of the scene that isn't "I look for hidden elements in the scene?"

This is the fundamental disconnect I'm having as you keep describing your playstyle. You keep insisting I tell you what my character does, but when I tell you what my character does, you say "You already did that, what else?" Well what else is there? How do you look for things without looking for things? Am I being regulated to investigation now because I must pick up and examine elements of the scene to get more information?

Players have their PCs engage with the description the DM has given. That's exactly what How to Play states. It is that simple.

Let's say there's a desk as part of the description of the room. If the player says "I look around" it is redundant. I've already described the room, including the desk, and telegraphed any threats. If the player says "I want to inspect the desk more closely by doing X, Y, and Z." Ok, now I have something to adjudicate.

You seem to want "I look around" to be enough as a PC's action. Since the room description already gave you everything you could possible glean from looking around, I'm going to give you a chance to try something else.

Or with insight. The goal of insight is to see through deception. But what action can I take other than... trying to see through deception, which I'm being told is a passive use of the skill and that I need to "do something" but... what is there to do? What do you expect someone to do before you call on them to roll these supposedly "passive" skills?

In addition to "seeing through deception", Wis(Insight) also comes into play for "predicting someone's next move" (PHB p178) or to "uncover one of the creature's characteristics." (DMG p 244).

After listening to an NPC, a player might tell the DM that their PC is:

• Watching for tell tale signs this NPC is lying
• Trying to figure out what this NPC might do next
• Wanting to deduce what's most important to this NPC (i.e. their bond or ideal perhaps)

These are all reasonably specific for a DM to adjudicate and may (or may not) result in a DM calling for an ability check.

They aren't spot-light hogging. They just get to auto-pass because they spoke up before the rogue. The rogue isn't going to tell the paladin "you can't hide in the pantry, I was going to hide in the pantry" because that isn't good teamplay, unless of course they know that the pantry is an auto-pass from you, then they are going to get upset that their plan which was a 100% guaranteed pass was stolen. Usually, they are going to try and figure out something else, because the paladin already that idea.

But again, going "first" leads to one player automatically succeeding on the skill, and another player having to roll. Which is fundamentally unfair, because "Swarmkeeper asked me what I wanted to do first" isn't a good way to adjudicate who is good at hiding in the fiction.

Did you miss the part where I explained that a DM can let all the players tell them what their PC is doing in a scene before the DM adjudicates, which gives the party time to hash these conflicts out (or not) as they see fit?

Not to mention, as there will not always be an optimal hiding spot in a given scene, going "first" guarantees nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

“I look around” is good enough for a perception check, and since looking around is something a character is always doing (assuming they can see, I guess), they are performing that action continuously over time, so I use a passive check to resolve it, as per the rules. If you want to find out if there is something hidden in the environment that was not revealed by your passive perception check, you’ll need to take another action.

This is not per the rules.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Any action by the PC that is declared by the player other than an attack that has a chance of failure(and a meaningful consequence for failure) goes to the dice. That's RAW. Perception does not default to passive if the player says the PC is looking around. At that moment it is not an action being constantly done over time. It's an active "I want to know what I rolled right now." moment and RAW says the player gets a roll if the outcome is uncertain.

 

[Charlaquin]

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Yes, and “A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can 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.”

Accordingly, I use passive checks when PCs perform tasks repeatedly (or continuously) and have a chance of failure and meaningful consequence. Of course, the wording clearly indicates that this is optional - “such a check can represent the average result of a task done repeatedly.” But it is an option I choose to take as a DM,

Any action by the PC that is declared by the player other than an attack that has a chance of failure(and a meaningful consequence for failure) goes to the dice. That's RAW. Perception does not default to passive if the player says the PC is looking around. At that moment it is not an action being constantly done over time. It's an active "I want to know what I rolled right now." moment and RAW says the player gets a roll if the outcome is uncertain.

And there is a more specific rule for actions performed repeatedly, which is that the DM can use a passive ability check to represent the average result. And I do.

 

[Reynard]

Passive skill rolls still require the PC to do the thing and are subject to all the requirements and limitations of an active roll. It is a game level procedural rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and “A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can 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.”

Secretly yes. Can represent a task that is done repeatedly, which is the key, because a task done repeatedly will roll all numbers 1-20, but passive uses the average. However, passive cannot by RAW be used for actively declared actions. Any and every action other than an attack that has an outcome that is in doubt and where failure is meaningful requires a roll by RAW.

Accordingly, I use passive checks when PCs perform tasks repeatedly (or continuously) and have a chance of failure and meaningful consequence.

This is a house rule, though. That's fine, but it's not what the rules say to do. The rules say, and I will quote it again...

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character ormonster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

This is further backed up by the actual perception rule which does not state passive anywhere.

"Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." Your wisdom perception check, not your wisdom passive perception.

Passive skills are used when the player is being passive. When the player is actively doing anything requiring a check, it's by RAW a roll.

Of course, the wording clearly indicates that this is optional - “such a check can represent the average result of a task done repeatedly.” But it is an option I choose to take as a DM,

Which even if you choose it, still does not by RAW allow you to use it when a player actively says his PC is looking around.

 

[iserith]

Secretly yes. Can represent a task that is done repeatedly, which is the key, because a task done repeatedly will roll all numbers 1-20, but passive uses the average. However, passive cannot by RAW be used for actively declared actions. Any and every action other than an attack that has an outcome that is in doubt and where failure is meaningful requires a roll by RAW.

This is a house rule, though. That's fine, but it's not what the rules say to do. The rules say, and I will quote it again...

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character ormonster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

This is further backed up by the actual perception rule which does not state passive anywhere.

"Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." Your wisdom perception check, not your wisdom passive perception.

Passive skills are used when the player is being passive. When the player is actively doing anything requiring a check, it's by RAW a roll.

Which even if you choose it, still does not by RAW allow you to use it when a player actively says his PC is looking around.

The disagreement you're having with @Charlaquin appears to be related to what you are both interpreting "I look around" to mean, not the actual rules. It seems to me Charlaquin is taking "I look around" in this context to be a restatement of what the character has already been established as doing while traveling the adventure location in which case it is a task performed repeatedly and can be resolved with a passive check. You appear to be taking it to me a discrete action separate from what the character was already doing. Until that is resolved, I think you are both going to just talk past each other.

What this reveals to me is that "I look around" is not reasonably specific enough since two different people appear to be interpreting it to mean different things! C'mon, players, you can do better.

 

[Charlaquin]

Secretly yes. Can represent a task that is done repeatedly, which is the key, because a task done repeatedly will roll all numbers 1-20, but passive uses the average. However, passive cannot by RAW be used for actively declared actions. Any and every action other than an attack that has an outcome that is in doubt and where failure is meaningful requires a roll by RAW.

This is a house rule, though. That's fine, but it's not what the rules say to do. The rules say, and I will quote it again...

It is not a house rule. You quoted a general rule about action resolution. I quoted a more specific rule about a particular subset of ability checks that can be used to resolve a particular subset of actions. I choose to use them that way, and the rules fully support that.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character ormonster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

“A passive check is a special kind of ability check.”

This is further backed up by the actual perception rule which does not state passive anywhere.

"Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." Your wisdom perception check, not your wisdom passive perception.

Again, a passive Wisdom (Perception) check is a kind of Wisdom (Perception) check.

Passive skills are used when the player is being passive. When the player is actively doing anything requiring a check, it's by RAW a roll.

Not so. A passive check is passive because it doesn’t involve a dice roll. But it is still used to resolve an action (which is by definition active, that’s why it has the word “act” in it) performed repeatedly, or to resolve an action (again, active) secretly.

Which even if you choose it, still does not by RAW allow you to use it when a player actively says his PC is looking around.

RAW explicitly does allow it, it literally says “such a check can represent the average result of a task done repeatedly.”

 

[Reynard]

Passive skills are used when the player is being passive. When the player is actively doing anything requiring a check, it's by RAW a roll.

No. That is not what the rule says. At all. It has been quoted many times in this thread-- by you even -- and the fact that you didn't quote it upon making that statement is telling.

 

[Maxperson]

The disagreement you're having with @Charlaquin appears to be related to what you are both interpreting "I look around" to mean, not the actual rules. It seems to me Charlaquin is taking "I look around" in this context to be a restatement of what the character has already been established as doing while traveling the adventure location in which case it is a task performed repeatedly and can be resolved with a passive check. You appear to be taking it to me a discrete action separate from what the character was already doing. Until that is resolved, I think you are both going to just talk past each other.

What this reveals to me is that "I look around" is not reasonably specific enough since two different people appear to be interpreting it to mean different things! C'mon, players, you can do better.

Even if the passive had already been performed in the area, I wouldn't go out of my way to gimp the PC out of potentially doing better than a 10 by disallowing an active roll.

Also, there's a difference in my mind between a passive effort while you're walking around just kinda looking around as you go, and actively taking time to stop and look around an area. The latter involves more effort and deserves a roll.