D&D 5E Perception vs Investigate

[Sir Brennen]

A passive check is for repeated activity, not subconscious activity.

It *can* represent repeated activity, where you just want to determine something based on the average of rolling over and over. For instance, I might tweak money earned making a living for downtime activities based on passive tool proficiency for a craftsman or passive Performance for a bard. Obviously this is simpler than rolling everyday to see how many horseshoes the character has made.

It can also be subconscious, like Passive Perception, which is not about trying to notice something over and over; it's what you're able to notice when you're not looking.

So yes, if you were "bouldering" down a hill a passive athletics check might be appropriate. PCs that fail fall and take some bludgeoning damage. Or would you prefer to make athletics checks for each boulder?

I wouldn't handle it either way.

Not completely sure what you mean by "bouldering", but I'm kind of picturing rolling down a hill like Westley in the Princess Bride. If I had characters trying to quickly get down a steep, rocky slope like that, would I have them roll for each boulder? No. Would I just take their average Str (Athletics) or Dex (Acrobatics) and compare to the DC of each boulder? No, not that either, since in your repeated activity explanation, that would mean they either hit ALL the boulders or NONE of the boulders. That right there causes the "passive = repeated" argument to fails for me in many scenarios.

What I would do in this case is, first, realize that I don't need to call for a roll for every boulder. If it's a fair distance down the hill, I may have the players make two or three rolls, likely one check per round of movement, but nothing more. You fail, you fall and roll, taking some damage. Continue making checks to try and stop your uncontrolled tumble, or take more damage. I may shake it up a bit by tweaking what happens based on high/low rolls, or a natural 1 or 20. Sort of a mental house rule I apply at my discretion.

I'd also do it this way because it from a player perspective, you'd either taking automatic damage or not, based on a static score, without a chance to save yourself. Rolling lets the players feel more in control of their characters, and as I let their rolls sometimes alter the narrative, it gives a feeling of contributing to the action and the story, even if the roll failed.

As far as investigation goes, a passive check would cover spending time in a research library (for example). A passive check success would have the PC find what they're looking for in a hour say, a failure would take all day.

For library research, in my games that's not a repeated activity, but an extended one. It'd require a single roll - Investigation or some other knowledge skill (Religion, Arcana, Nature, etc) as applicable - and the result would be pretty much pass/fail. I might decrease/increase the time spent, or give more/less info, based on the result of the roll, as I mentioned above.

Again, in your scenario a PC with a passive score below the DC will always take all day, and the skilled Investigator will always take just an hour. Sometimes it's more fun to have the low-Int half-orc fighter surprise everyone and stumble across the "stupid elf book" before the scholarly wizard does.

So, still looking for examples for Passive Investigation in particular. Adding to the oddness of it in the Observant feat seems to give as much weight to it as Passive Perception, which is sort of a special Passive skill. I mean, it's the only one given a spot on the official character sheet. And for a feat to include it, it seems like something that should come up more often.

I've seen people mention it might have been something accidentally carried over from the playtest docs, where Passive Investigation had a more specific meaning.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It can also be subconscious, like Passive Perception, which is not about trying to notice something over and over; it's what you're able to notice when you're not looking.

"When you're not looking" is when you have your eyes closed. Any time they are open, they are constantly trying to notice things - it's what they do.

And at any rate, this is a distinction you are making that the rules of the game do not. Passive Perception exists because characters with their eyes open are constantly looking at the world around them, and having to roll every round to determine what actually is seen would be tedious.

 

[Sir Brennen]

"When you're not looking" is when you have your eyes closed. Any time they are open, they are constantly trying to notice things - it's what they do.

And at any rate, this is a distinction you are making that the rules of the game do not. Passive Perception exists because characters with their eyes open are constantly looking at the world around them, and having to roll every round to determine what actually is seen would be tedious.

Sorry, the "something" from the first part of the sentence was implied in "when you're not looking", i.e. "when you're not looking for something in particular". And while you're pedantic reading of the game term "Passive" is technically correct, my interpretation based on the more common usage of the word "passive" works just as well in game in this instance. Rulings not rules.

Doesn't really impact the discussion anyway.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...And while you're pedantic reading of the game term "Passive" is technically correct, my interpretation based on the more common usage of the word "passive" works just as well in game in this instance. Rulings not rules.

It is when the game text turns a word into a game term, as is the case with passive checks since they are called out and defined (just like how common usage of "attack" and game usage of "attack" are different), that it is okay to not force yourself to use the common definition - especially in cases like this wherein using that definition makes the rules as presented seem less sensible or clear.

Rule differently as you wish - just be aware, and accurate in your presentation, that you are ruling in a different way than the book does.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Rule differently as you wish - just be aware, and accurate in your presentation, that you are ruling in a different way than the book does.

Am I? I don't find anything to support your assertion that Passive Perception exists because it's a repeated activity. That's your interpretation. Per the Passive Check description:

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

We all expand on the RAW with real-world (or even fantastical) justifications. Again, in this case, I'm not really seeing any impacts to the way I'd call use Passive Perception vs an actual roll in my game.

 

[iserith]

It *can* represent repeated activity, where you just want to determine something based on the average of rolling over and over. For instance, I might tweak money earned making a living for downtime activities based on passive tool proficiency for a craftsman or passive Performance for a bard. Obviously this is simpler than rolling everyday to see how many horseshoes the character has made.

It can also be subconscious, like Passive Perception, which is not about trying to notice something over and over; it's what you're able to notice when you're not looking.

The ongoing or repeated task the uncertain outcome of which is resolved by passive Perception would be something like "keep watch for danger" or "search for secret doors" while traveling the dungeon. It's not "subconscious." It's a thing you're actively doing, repeatedly, over time. If you're doing some other task such as drawing a map, you're not keeping watch for danger. It's not "always on" radar. When it's treated that way is when some of the other rules in the book start to make less sense or seem overpowered.

I'd also do it this way because it from a player perspective, you'd either taking automatic damage or not, based on a static score, without a chance to save yourself. Rolling lets the players feel more in control of their characters, and as I let their rolls sometimes alter the narrative, it gives a feeling of contributing to the action and the story, even if the roll failed.

The chance to save yourself comes from the decision you make before the roll, not the roll itself. If anything, players should be trying to avoid making rolls since putting your life in the hands of a d20 is a risky proposition at best. While fun, rolling a die to get a random result is the opposite of control. UNLESS, the DM is one to say "No" or "Fail" most of the time unless a roll tells him or her otherwise. Then you'll see the phenomenon of players asking to make checks. Otherwise, the smart play in my view is to remove uncertainty from the equation as best you can so you automatically succeed and to never ask to roll.

For library research, in my games that's not a repeated activity, but an extended one.

It's really a semantic difference as I see it. In context, I take "task done repeatedly" as necessarily an "extended one" because they take the same amount of time. Such a task is appropriately resolved by a passive check, if there is uncertainty as to the outcome. The player is effectively hedging his or her bet by trading time (an important resource) and the opportunity cost of performing some other useful task in exchange for never rolling less than a 10 if the DM finds the action declaration to have an uncertain outcome.

Again, in your scenario a PC with a passive score below the DC will always take all day, and the skilled Investigator will always take just an hour. Sometimes it's more fun to have the low-Int half-orc fighter surprise everyone and stumble across the "stupid elf book" before the scholarly wizard does.

I think it's reasonable for the skilled Investigator to always take less time than the unskilled one. It's part of niche protection and validates the player's build choices and decision on what to commit to during play. While it's funny to see the wizard bash down the door where the burly fighter couldn't, it's funny because it's weird. That weirdness can be avoided by handling the action resolution as we suggest.

So, still looking for examples for Passive Investigation in particular. Adding to the oddness of it in the Observant feat seems to give as much weight to it as Passive Perception, which is sort of a special Passive skill. I mean, it's the only one given a spot on the official character sheet. And for a feat to include it, it seems like something that should come up more often.

I've seen people mention it might have been something accidentally carried over from the playtest docs, where Passive Investigation had a more specific meaning.

It's possible the passive Investigation part of that feat is a holdover from when passive Investigation was more of a common thing to see in-game. Even so, adjudicating as I and others have suggested brings it in line with the rest of the rules and makes is somewhat more valuable to a player (but probably never as valuable as a high passive Perception).

 

[Sir Brennen]

The ongoing or repeated task the uncertain outcome of which is resolved by passive Perception would be something like "keep watch for danger" or "search for secret doors" while traveling the dungeon. It's not "subconscious." It's a thing you're actively doing, repeatedly, over time. If you're doing some other task such as drawing a map, you're not keeping watch for danger. It's not "always on" radar. When it's treated that way is when some of the other rules in the book start to make less sense or seem overpowered.

See, that is pretty much how I play it, even I haven't stated that clearly. Obviously if you're doing something else, you're probably going to be too distracted to notice something sneaking up on you. However, if a player hasn't stated they're "watching for danger", but aren't doing something else, beyond walking and a little bit of talking, I still take Passive Perception into account for potential dangers. "Search for secret doors" would be something they would have to declare, and be considered a distraction.

The chance to save yourself comes from the decision you make before the roll, not the roll itself. If anything, players should be trying to avoid making rolls since putting your life in the hands of a d20 is a risky proposition at best. While fun, rolling a die to get a random result is the opposite of control. UNLESS, the DM is one to say "No" or "Fail" most of the time unless a roll tells him or her otherwise. Then you'll see the phenomenon of players asking to make checks. Otherwise, the smart play in my view is to remove uncertainty from the equation as best you can so you automatically succeed and to never ask to roll.

And we're talking about you're "UNLESS" sentence there, based on what robus proposed earlier for "bouldering". By setting a DC, the DM has automatically said "Fail" for anyone who's passive score doesn't exceed that. Your getting bludgeoned by boulders. Sorry. You had zero chance. Players would rather roll (or at least, know the DM had to roll) than just be told "you fail". That's exactly my point.

It's really a semantic difference as I see it. In context, I take "task done repeatedly" as necessarily an "extended one" because they take the same amount of time. Such a task is appropriately resolved by a passive check, if there is uncertainty as to the outcome. The player is effectively hedging his or her bet by trading time (an important resource) and the opportunity cost of performing some other useful task in exchange for never rolling less than a 10 if the DM finds the action declaration to have an uncertain outcome.

So you're really working back in the 3E "Take 10" concept, just as a DM call, not a player's. I don't get your reasoning of "if there is uncertainty as to the outcome", though. Swinging a sword has an uncertainty of the outcome. Should it be a passive check? It'd definitely make fights go faster.

I still disagree with library research for Int (Investigation) as a passive check. Sure the player effectively will never "roll" less than a 10. He will also never roll over a 10. Again, if the PC's passive score isn't high enough, they will never, ever find the thing they're looking for. An automatic fail.

I think it's reasonable for the skilled Investigator to always take less time than the unskilled one. It's part of niche protection and validates the player's build choices and decision on what to commit to during play. While it's funny to see the wizard bash down the door where the burly fighter couldn't, it's funny because it's weird.

With a roll, the skilled Investigator will still usually be the one to find the info, likely in less time. There's sufficient niche protection. The fighter may fail bashing the door down on a roll (my players use crowbars to get Advantage), but if the wizard then comes up and does it, the fighter can claim to have loosen it for him. Niche protection can come from narrative and role-playing too. Plus, if something requires a particular skill to accomplish, the party will generally have the person with the best score attempt it, which also re-enforces niches.

That weirdness can be avoided by handling the action resolution as we suggest.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting even things like bashing a door down, which is not a repetitive actions, be handled with passive checks? So the DM could just look at players stats and skills, set a DC, and know whether each character will succeed or fail at most tasks ahead of time? That's not action resolution, that's predetermination. Really, is that what you're suggesting?

 

[robus]

Wait, what? Are you suggesting even things like bashing a door down, which is not a repetitive actions, be handled with passive checks? So the DM could just look at players stats and skills, set a DC, and know whether each character will succeed or fail at most tasks ahead of time? That's not action resolution, that's predetermination. Really, is that what you're suggesting?

Obviously it's not We're focusing (at the moment) on passive checks. Bashing down a door is a singular action, requiring a roll (if the DM is unsure of whether the PC is successful).

On the bouldering example - the PCs are given the choice of trying to quickly get down the rocky hillside (picture repetitively jumping from rock to rock) and thus risking some damage or taking it more slowly and safely (and risking getting caught by whatever might be chasing them). Interesting decisions for the player to make. Fast and certain damage (for some less dextrous characters) or slow and uncertain risk, or perhaps the players will decide some alternative course?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Obviously it's not We're focusing (at the moment) on passive checks. Bashing down a door is a singular action, requiring a roll (if the DM is unsure of whether the PC is successful).

Well, iserith brought it up in the context of the wizard/fighter door-bashing scenario, and avoiding the weirdness of that by "by handling the action resolution as we suggest", with that action resolution being passive checks.

But anyway, I'll try to continue this discussion your Abilities and their modes of use thread when I get home from work.

 

[robus]

Well, iserith brought it up in the context of the wizard/fighter door-bashing scenario, and avoiding the weirdness of that by "by handling the action resolution as we suggest", with that action resolution being passive checks.

But anyway, I'll try to continue this discussion your Abilities and their modes of use thread when I get home from work.

Cool - yeah - I was seeing a few threads discussing different aspects of abilities and thought it would be interesting to bring them altogether (or perhaps I've just opened the hellmouth? )