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

[Not a Hobbit]

Personally, I also like Jeremy Crawford's personal feelings on Passive Perception - Passive Perception/Investigation/etc is the base floor for your roll, a minimum. So, even if you roll a 2, you're not less-aware than you would be if you hadn't had to roll.

So, since every skill check has a passive equivalent, everybody basically gets Reliable Talent? (actually better, since it would apply to all ability checks and not just ones with proficiency)
Nice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Most certainly, and there's nothing wrong with that!


Because you can't always succeed. I could give my aunt an easy sudoku puzzle and explain how to do it, but she'd never actually be able to finish it. This is a small frame puzzle with known rules, yet she couldn't solve it the problem because she lacks the mental ability to do so. Now consider that you have a hallway made of stone walls. You have hundreds of stones that might trigger the door, and the trigger might not even be that close to the door, making it effectively infinite possible choices. Now add in the fact that a one-way secret door won't have an trigger on one side (possibly the side of the players) and some secret door triggers might not be anywhere near the door (I had a dungeon where the trigger was solving a puzzle 2 rooms away). I could see a character putting in a lot of time to solve it, but in reality not everything can be solved.

Out of curiosity, how do you use the intelligence skills to recall lore? Can you just "keep thinking about it" until you remember? IMO it's the same thing.

If there's no chance of success, why roll at all?

The middle way assumption is that you are calling for checks only when the outcome is uncertain and when there is a consequence for failure.

 

[iserith]

Because you can't always succeed. I could give my aunt an easy sudoku puzzle and explain how to do it, but she'd never actually be able to finish it. This is a small frame puzzle with known rules, yet she couldn't solve it the problem because she lacks the mental ability to do so. Now consider that you have a hallway made of stone walls. You have hundreds of stones that might trigger the door, and the trigger might not even be that close to the door, making it effectively infinite possible choices. Now add in the fact that a one-way secret door won't have an trigger on one side (possibly the side of the players) and some secret door triggers might not be anywhere near the door (I had a dungeon where the trigger was solving a puzzle 2 rooms away). I could see a character putting in a lot of time to solve it, but in reality not everything can be solved.

Out of curiosity, how do you use the intelligence skills to recall lore? Can you just "keep thinking about it" until you remember? IMO it's the same thing.

It looks like in some of your examples, we shouldn't even be rolling at all. One reasonably needs the clues to make the deduction and if they are several rooms away, the deduction can't be made. Lacking mental ability to do thing at all also precludes there being a check.

As for recalling lore, you can or you can't. My go-to resolution (if there is a roll at all) is that on success I give the player what he or she wants. On failure, I give them something other than that or less than what they are looking for. So you always get something, never nothing. Recalling lore is different than making a deduction based on clues. Much like an investigator pouring over the details of a case or someone trying to solve a Rubik's cube, given enough time, they may be able to figure it out, provided they have what they need to solve it. If they lack clues, however, then they can't solve it so there's no roll. They simply fail.

 

[clearstream]

If there's no chance of success, why roll at all?

The middle way assumption is that you are calling for checks only when the outcome is uncertain and when there is a consequence for failure.

I understood @Shiroiken as addressing the case where the character has made the attempt and failed, and does not qualify for a repeat attempt. I believe that is envisioned in the guidance on checks. It's possible I mistook their argument.

EDIT DMG 237 "In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again."

 

[Azzy]

I want to thank all of you—from those that outlined the existing, but scattered, rules and reiterated them in a single space as well as those that offered their interpretations and houserules that differ from RAW. You've all given me a lot to think about and a lot of options to ponder. Thank you, this is what I like about ENWorld the best.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I understood @Shiroiken as addressing the case where the character has made the attempt and failed, and does not qualify for a repeat attempt. I believe that is envisioned in the guidance on checks. It's possible I mistook their argument.

EDIT DMG 237 "In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again."

The post I responded to was talking on an impossible check, not a possible check that was failed and not allowed a retry.

On that, though, I find that it's best form to make sure this is represented in the fiction and not just an unexplained game element. Usually, a check can't be retried because the situation that allowed the check no longer exists.

 

[Starfox]

One of the things I do not like about the game using Investigation to "deduce" how things work is that it runs completely counter to the idea of the DM putting things in place for the players to figure out.

If I put in a secret door and I think up some hidden mechanism for the way it is meant to unlock and open... why would I want to have a skill in place that players would use instead of them figuring out how the mechanism works? Why bother thinking up the way to open the door if the skill check pretty much gets around needing to think about how to open the door by the skill "deducing" the answer?

To me, this is the difference between old school and other play styles. In strict old school play,. the players state action their character does in detail, and the GM then adjudicates the result. In an extreme version of this style, there is no need for the characters to have skills; that is on the players. In strict "new school" (never seen that term thus used) the characters have skills and every action is determined solely by the character's abilities. The players job is to move the playing piece. Obviously, these are extremes and almost everyone uses some kind of hybrid, which I feel is how it should be. So, in your example, a hybrid might work like this: The GM presents the puzzle and let the players attempt to solve it. If they are stymied, the GM lets them roll Investigation (or whatever) and hands out extra clues. Repeat until the situation is resolved in one way or another. In many cases, the game would come to a standstill if the players fail entirely, so the GM continues handing out clues until they succeed or force them to pay some price - use a scroll of knock, spend 2 days hacking the door away (fail forward). To me this is a part of the illusionism you use as a GM - you give the players enough clues that they can feel clever because they solved the problem "themselves". Others may perfer other styles, perhaps more confrontational.

 

[Starfox]

So, since every skill check has a passive equivalent, everybody basically gets Reliable Talent? (actually better, since it would apply to all ability checks and not just ones with proficiency)
Nice.

This does indeed seem to be what the rules say. I too find it odd.

 

[Starfox]

There can be totally appropriate and legitimate overlap with Perception and Investigation. It's a case-by-case, dependent on the situation basis...

The problem with taking this approach to extremis (and not going into your further argument, just this part) is that it becomes impossible to build a character who is good at certain things you want them to be good at. Say I am making a dwarf who is a skilled stonemason, and I want them to be good at noticing unusual stonework, including traps and secret doors. If you use a simple rule like "Perception notices creatures, Investigation notices things" it is very clear; my character should invest in Investigation.

This is also why I dislike systems where the GM arbitrarily assigns an attribute+skill combination for each task; its impossible to design a character and know they are actually good at something. A sensible approach to my mind is to say that you notice secret doors using one specific skill, say Investigation, and investigation is based on Intelligence. So the roll is Intelligence + Investigation. But, in a specific situation, the GM may give the player the option to use other combinations of skill+attribute. Say this is a secret door the PC knows is on a certain wall, but the wall is a mile long - allow the player the option to roll Con+Investigation to represent the energy to look over every little bit of wall and not lose focus. But don't take away the standard option.

This leads me to the claim I made in 4E as a joke. Let me play a dwarf, and I can make very roll in every skill challenge ever using Stamina (or whatever the skill was called), as long as the task is measured in time longer than rounds. [I mention this as a joke more than as a challenge. ]

I need to convince the king? I hold a loooong oration, quoting every generation of my clan since time immemorial until the king simply gives in due to fatigue. To interrupt a dwarf is inexcusable!

I need to win over the kings diplomats at dinner? I drink them under the table.

I need to disarm a trap? I very carefully and above all methodically line out every possible option for how the trap could work, never losing my concentration.

I need to travel the wilderness? I just never give up.

And so on, ad nauseum.

 

[Starfox]

What concerns me is that on a mechanical level what seems to be advocated is this - pass an Intelligence (Investigation) check or be attacked by wandering monsters. It feels to me like I am not making an Investigation check to figure out the secret door - I did that automatically - my check is really to do it quietly. Say I have great Dexterity (Stealth)? I am wondering why I'm not using the skill I invested in that is specifically aimed at doing things quietly? I

This is another fail forward technique, a very simple one. When you really want the players to succeed, but you want them to feel they earned that success, this is a technique you can use. It has its flaws, but used in moderation it can work. I like to call this "roll until success".

• There is a secret door here, roll Investigation to see if you understand how it works. [fail]
• You work the door roughly, and risk making excessive noise. Roll Stealth. [fail]
• The doors is now overbalanced and might crash to the floor, making a huge noise! Roll Strength to catch it! [fail]
• And so on, and on, and on...

The opposite "technique" is "roll until fail" and is really bad but easy to fall into as a GM.

• There is a secret door here, roll Investigation to see if you understand how it works. [succeed]
• You work the door properly, see if you can also work it silently. Roll Stealth. [succeed]
• The doors is heavy. Roll Strength! [success]
• And so on, and on, until the character fails, likely sooner than later

A wiser option might be to negotiate GM to Player on what skill (+attribute) to use, and let the player use one the character is good at if they make a decent argument for it. [Sorry if these options and examples are trite to you, dear reader. ]