It grants you +5 to passive perception and insight checks. This sets up the very possible scenario where your non-passive checks commonly doing worse than their passive versions. Additionally, the +5 to passives is a feature of having advantage. So, shouldn't the feat also grant advantage to those checks?
McFlizzle wrote:
McFlizzle wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
It's weird as is because if you try to look for something specific, you're more likely to fail but somehow you do better when you're not trying to pay attention yet you have this feat called Observant. That's what leads me to believe something was ommitted.
onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
McFlizzle wrote:
McFlizzle wrote:
This was possibility in 4th too. Your passive was just a 10 roll. Your active was a second chance.
It depends what sort of wall exists in the rules between making an active after getting your passive.
I don't have the PH in front of me, but if you have this Feat and you somehow gain advantage on the passive check is that a +10 to PP? (The Feat would have to specificially say that it grants Advantage...)
It would be way too good if you added advantage to active checks. As it is, it's already pretty amazing.
If I was the designers, I would've changed it to be advantage to active checks and no bonus to passive. But that's just me.
While mechanically I agree with you, being observant is more in keeping with having a high passive check however.... It represents keen situational awareness and an attention to detail, both of which imply heightened passive awareness in addition to active "searching" skills.
The feat would be much too strong if it granted a bonus to both passive and active checks however, but I disagree that the bonus is better suited to perception checks (vs. passive perception).
I think there's a rule somewhere in PHB that says if you have adv on a check, but you are applying it to a passive score, you get +5 to it.
So a DM could probably reason in reverse, that since this feat gives you +5 on your passive perception, when you make an active check you get adv instead.
But it's weird the devs didnt spell this out, so perhaps that wasnt intended. It is still very awesome, a flat +5 on passive perception is huge, and I suppose could just simulate that your PC is rarely taken by surprise etc - he/she is just naturally paranoid, instinctively very alert, or has a 6th sense kind of thing... and that when he/she is actively looking, that is separate and distinct purposeful act, and they just roll as normal for that.
I like the feat either way.
Dungeon Delver + Observant means the equivalent of rolling a 20 for finding secret doors as you walk by?
That + Expertise (level 17+) + 20 INT ... find secret doors when walking by them with an equivalent of a 37? Unless the Gods themselves hid that door, sounds like you are good.
McFlizzle wrote:
Well presumably you're making an active check because you think your passive missed something. So yeah, it's whichever's higher but you're likely to only be rolling when you think your pasive isn't good enough.
Psikerlord wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Yunru wrote:
So, summorizing it:
- Passiv checks are automatically made without even saying you are doing it.
- Observant gives +5 to all Perception and Investigation checks (even for hidden treasure, etc.)
- If you think of that your passiv check might be too low, you can try to beat it with the active check. If the active check fails (e.g. a rolled 3), the passiv check still counts (because sth. you do automatically can't be worse while repeating it like having a "second view" on it).
Is that right?
Furthermore: Is the Passive Check affected while being under pressure or in a hurry?
Peter
IMO a check, wether active or passive, is only ever made if the DM ask for one, which is usually when a task has a chance of failure. Only then does he determine wether you use a passive or active check, and if it can be repeated using one or the other. as generally a passive check represent just that, the result for a task done repeatedly.
But the green box on page 177 PHB says:
"When you hide, there is a chance that someone will notice you even if they aren't searching"
Transfering this to the Investigation skill would mean:
"You can find treasure/secred doors even if your are not (actively) searching for it..."
And that would mean:
If you think of that your passiv check might be too low, you can try to beat it with the active check. If the active check fails (e.g. a rolled 3), thepassiv check still counts (because sth. you do automatically can't be worse while repeating it like having a "second view" on it).
SpedGuy wrote:
p-touch wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
p-touch wrote:
So basic ruling for perception should be:
you automaticaly detect your "take 10" score and only roll if the DC is above that.
So the feat gives you ability to be more consistent in detecting the things you could detect in anyway(roll 15) but doesn't give you any sharper senses(increasing you max possilble skill check), so you cant detect things that were undetectable to you before you took the feat.
While reading the forum I found this post:
Bumamgar wrote:
Hmm... special thanks to the OP for starting this conversation. I had not previously considered the utility of Passive Investigation, and I'll definitely keep it in mind while crafting future adventures!
BookooHundo wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
LuckyMe,
Talk with your DM before you have to make your decision about Observant.
If he ignores Passive Perception or uses some other mechanism to handle searching, it won't be worth much. OTOH, if he lets you "automatically roll PP" it will come in useful.
My AL Monk also is thinking about Observant, because I've had too many experiences where "if you blow your roll and don't detect the trap / clue / hidden ambusher / whatever, the party gets derailed into a time-consuming and injury-prone side quest". When you play on a time limit (because at a convention), anything time-consuming is to be avoided. So I want to see / hear / smell / feel when things are "wrong somehow". The smarter guys in the party can then figure out how to best proceed.
Trance-Zg wrote:
Thing is that some DMs don't believe and consequently don't use passive values; it's either an effective feat or worthless feat. I got a feeling that the original design involved granting advantage with +5 to passive, as supported by the current rules for advantage on passive rolls; however, granting advantage on perception was unbalancing and was ditched. This thought is also supported by the elimination of perception advantage for elves from the beta-test to live game.