Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8203903" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>Nothing wrong with doing it this way, certainly.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, to be clear, you are more thinking along the lines of this:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>(Emphasis mine)</p><p></p><p>Yes, I completely agree with this, which is why passive scores should be used IMO. Other things <em>could</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8203903, member: 6987520"] 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, 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. (Emphasis mine) Yes, I completely agree with this, which is why passive scores should be used IMO. Other things [I]could[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation
Top