So hold on here. This feat grants +5 bonus to passive Wisdom (*Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation) score among other things. So a base 10 +5 is a 15 plus stats and any proficiency. That is equal or better to 75% of all d20 rolls to actively use the skill in question. I had a player tell me she was wanted to use her "passive perception" to check for hidden enemies up ahead. It is not in the errata as changed. Is this actually how it should work, but purposely not paying attention the player is generally better off than actually making a roll?
Passive perception happens, passively. It activates before active perception, which is an ability check. So it would go off before the PC actively searches the area. Most people view it like an "always on" radar that detects hidden things, and if the PCs either suspect something is hidden, but their passive perception is too low to notice anything, then they actively search for it, which still has a chance to be worse then their passive perception. It isn't like they're not paying attention in game, they're just more susceptible to notice something without putting much effort toawrds it then when they're actively trying to search. So the player shouldn't have to ask to use passive perception, usually DMs ask for all their player's to give them their passive perception scores which the DM keeps track of, and if it beats a hidden enemy's stealth score, they say the player's character notices the enemy.
Yeah, the PC doesn't have to ask to use his passive perception, it's automatic. If there are hidden enemies up ahead and they rolled 14 or lower on stealth, then the character with 15 passive perception will instantly notice them when he comes into line of sight.
No. There is no such thing as Passive Perception. You do not have a Passive Perception Skill.
When they use such a term, it is shorthand for taking a Passive Skill Check using your Wisdom(Perception) skill. Please note, Passive describes the *check*, not the skill... and not how the skill is 'used'
The section in the book is titled "Passive Checks", the first sentence defines it "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. "
The *check* is passive because the player is not involved... he is not actively rolling a die.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Personally I think the feat is idiotic for precisely the reasons the OP gives. Once you have the feat, your character will enjoy better success finding things if he avoids looking for them.
Saeviomagy wrote:
I suppose I will end up running at as the minimum value they can get. Which I tend to do with normal passive perception. Otherwise I have the wierd effect where the character walks into a tavern and if they say "I look to see if anyone pays undu attention to me" they might roll a 4 and get a total like 10. But of they just say "I walk to the bar and order a drink" they get a 19 to notice anyone looking at them oddly.
Observant seems to work exactly as it should. Feats are a pretty big deal in 5e, enough that you are sacrfiicing valuable stat bumps for them.
Other than that the Observant character doesn't ever need to state thay are using the "Passive Perception" located on the Character Record Sheet. It's always happening "passively". The hiding rules specifically state that they need to beat the passive perception of those they are hiding from.
Therefore if folks want to hide themselves and their stuff they may want to get better at it.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Unlike other passive checks that just represent "doing a task again and again", passive perception specifically is mentioned in multiple parts of the rules and consequently works a bit different.
And you're looking at it the wrong way. Passive perception doesn't make it easier to find targets if you don't actively search for them. If your passive perception is high enough, you will directly see the targets so an active check is not even needed. You would only do active checks if your passive perception is too low. There is no such thing as "you could see the target with your passive perception but because you decided to actively search and rolled low, you can no longer see them".
Yunru wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
WorBlade wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
I'm not sure the whole "better if I'm not trying" idea is even wrong. There are plenty of things I do better when I don't think about how I'm doing them. I'd imagine someone with the Observant feat has a good general awareness, but might lose some of their good general awareness if they start scouting around for specific things.
On that note, I have anecdotes. Kind of hard to explain...but here's an example.
There's a Wii game called "Ninja Training" or something like that, which I played before. One of the games requires you to press a button as soon as you can after a firefly appears. I found that it was much easier to win that game by un-focusing my eyes and shifting my gaze between a few points at the center of the screen. Focusing intently on any given thing made it hard to notice the fireflies when they appeared, but "drifting off" made it easier.
Same story with another game that involved catching a fly with chopsticks. By far the easiest way to win was to relax my focus and keep my hand still, and wait until the fly came near to "intercept" it.
These probably aren't perfectly analogous, but they do help make sense of the idea that someone could be especially good at noticing things in their peripheral vision, but be worse at intensely studying a thing for details.
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00, Macv12, and AaronOfBarbaria have the right of it.
WorBlade wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
I have a Wood Elf Monk/Rogue who has WIS as his secondary stat, Expertise(Perception), and will take Observant. The point of the exercise is, that he is very aware of his surroundings at all times. (This is why I am going to give both my PP score and the compiled math to the DM on a notecard.)
He notices things about the world around him, without me having to say "I look at the X", "I smell the Y", "I concentrate on the slight draft; tell me ALL about it", "I listen at the Z", "I touch the Q". That is how he normally conducts himself; it's going to get boring repeating myself over and over to the DM. This is an in-game-mechanic way to get the same result.
I've already changed the outcome of one AL module with him - since I could Perception the main trail, and have the background feature "you know where you are at all times", we did not get lost in the Trackless Swamp. Instead of expending time / effort fighting Random Encounters, we got to concentrate on defeating the BBEG at the end instead.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
A player can not 'use' their passive perception to make a check.
As the DM we get to determine what can be found with a passive check. A passive perception of 27 does not mean you get to find a switch behind a mural by walking past it. A passive score sucess may also just give you part of the information depending on what the DM decides. You could say that the passive perception let the player know that the mural seems to have been pushed aside often, but then have them roll if they want to investigate (or just have them find the switch if it's easy to see with the mural moved).
One thing to keep in mind is that the passive perception is -5 with disadvantage and +5 with advantage. That means that if you want to give the player disadvantage when not deliberately searching for certain things then they would be better off rolling.
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
WorBlade wrote:
You can treat it very simple.
You automatially find anything with DC less or equal of your passive score. For higher DC's DM will call for perception check. Or if you call for for perception check and spend an action for it.
Observant does not give you ability to find high end threats but it gives consistency for low-mid level checks.
With prof +2 and stat +2 my maximum active Perception is 24. If I have advantage and Observant my passive Perception is also 24. I point this out simply to say there doesn't seem to be a case where passive can spot something that active couldn't. What I belive the OP is concerned about is that obviously in the case just described the active chance to spot is about 10% whereas the passive chance is 100%. And that same principle applies right the way down to DC 6. Passive always beats active. At DC 5 the chances converge.
It's kind of an edge case - Observant + advantage - but it does illustrate a slight oddity in the rules. However, I don't really read that oddity quite the same way as the OP does. Most of the time advantage wouldn't apply in which case above DC 19 the player needs to do something active in order to have any chance at all to spot. And up to that DC they don't have to exert any special effort. They're literally that observant. Feat working as intended!
Horwath wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
The DM could also rule that some things just can't be passively "Percieved" or "Investigated", ie the exact mechanism of a trap or secret compartment. Perhaps you passively observe enemies hidden in the woods off the trail. What are they and what are they carrying? Active perception check needed.
ezrider23 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I know that this edition is supposed to be less rule heavy out of the box, but I'd like to see an optional rule to bring in trap stealth. I don't like having two static numbers and then comparing them when it comes to discovering stuff.
I'd rather give traps and hidden things a stealth roll vs. passive perception to put in some variability. If a trap could be found if the player rolls a 15 with perception, then we could let the trap make a stealth check 1d20+5 against the player's passive perception instead. That would mean fewer instances of a player rolling poorly and then deciding they are going to look again.
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
ezrider23 wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Not sure why this is confusing for some.
The idea of figuring out the passive score for anything is so that the DM can figure out whether the players have the ability to contest something without having to roll ...and therefore reveal that something is afoot. If a cuthroat is sneaking up behind the party as they travel. asking them to roll dice tells them something is up, and many players will act accordingly (some without realizing that this is what they are doing.
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 DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
MrHotter wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
WorBlade wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Just do away with all skills and feats.
Only roll the dice for Initiative, Attacks, Damage and Saves.
Yes, i'm being a sarcastic ass and not contributing anything worth a damn. 
Saeviomagy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
[quote="AaronOfBarbaria"]
Psikerlord wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
If you read the published adventures, just about 90% of the perception checks are done passively. The room descriiptions say "as you enter, if any character has a passive of X they notice Y. So just ditching passive perception because you don't like it kind of screws over the intent of the system and the character that took the feat.
I see no issues with the feat. The opportunity cost is an ABI or any other feat in the game, many of which are quite good.
There's also a tradeoff in play. If you want to be the guy who notices all the lurking monsters before they get the jump on you (typically a factor of monster Stealth vs. your PP), then you're basically stuck keeping watch at all times. Short of being a ranger in his or her favored terrain, you can't do anything else that is at least as distracting as foraging, tracking, navigating, or map-making - and when you think about it, that can be a lot of stuff. So if you want to keep an eye out for secret doors in the branching corridors, you might not even have a chance at noticing the mimic before it strikes as you are focused on something else. Passive Perception may also not apply if you're not in the position to notice something, such as if a threat approaches the rear of the party while you're at the front.
Having a high passive Perception doesn't mean you notice everything all the time. It depends on the circumstances and what you say you're doing. When it does apply, you'll be glad to have taken Observant. Just don't count on passive Perception applying all the time.
Psikerlord wrote:
ezrider23 wrote:
BRJN wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
DMSage wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
Personally, I think the wording on the feat was developed in the playtest when there was more things that used passive scores....Passive perception got kept, but there are only a few references to passive:Investigation in all of season 1 and 2.
my gnome wizard had a passive investigation score of 22, which should more or less read 'you notice everything worth noticing when you walk into a room'. There is something surreal about having to constantly remind the DM how much you aren't paying attention for things...so that you can notice them.
The feat clearly does not work exactly as it was probably intended to.
You would think that there would be an operating assumption that PCs in a dungeon would be 'looking out' for dangerous stuff. I mean I've been gaming for 20+ years and I never seen anyone who looked for a dungeon that didn't have monsters in it....empty dungeons = someone else's adventure. Yeah there is that 1 time at band camp, but lets not act like the extreme corner cases are not exceptions.
How do you explain to the DM that you want to find stuff, but that you only want to find it by...not trying to find it. If you ASK to find it...then the DM says 'roll investigation!', and its like you spent a feat to get disadvantage.
It should probably just read 'You gain advantage on passive: Perception, and on Int: Investigation checks." Fixed. Passive perception is actually a thing that gets used in the rules constantly, and there is even a box on the character sheet for it.
In the game I was running, I used passive scores for basic tasks. similar to 'taking 10'..want to tie up the unconscious bad guy, no problem you have a dex of 16 and another character helps you...passive score +5. You want to figure out how to ford a regular ol river along your travels, no problem the guy with the best survival bonus figures it out. Saves a lot of time.
Byakugan01 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I already know all of the things you told me...as do, I suspect, most of the people that read the thread.
Does not change the fact that the observant feat makes you drive on the parkway, then park on the driveway.
I've had 3 different AL DMs since I started playing 5e...none of them use any passive checks except for perception.
It also still does not change the fact that if you want your character to look for something, then you tell the DM you want to do so, and most of the time that prompts the DM to ask you for a skill check.
Then you have wonky situations like if you are in combat and an enemy casts invisibility and hides...how do you find them? Normally you ask the DM if you can see them and they say 'ok roll perception'....then you have characters that will be like 'Oh I am done fighting....I want to just look for him the same way I always look for stuff....can I get my +5?'. herp derp
Maybe they should change them and call them base scores...and actually include the part where it explains that things like tying your shoes and cooking dinner falls into this category. It is really only implied right now.
Filksinger wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Filksinger wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The driveway/parkway reference was an illustration of how our language frequently is confusing. The observant feat is another good example.
Why is it called a passive skill when you have to do it repeatedly for it to count? Thats the opposite of passive.
They described it very poorly. It's ok, you guys can admit it.
I mean really....if you are playing an MMO and your character gets an ability that says 'passive skill, gain +X damage' and you have to click it 50 times to get the effect to happen....what do you think the players will be saying about it in the forums?
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I would agree that there are many examples in published adventures and in actual play videos of what I would consider improper or badly conveyed use of passive checks, Perception in particular. But the basic rules themselves are fine and Observant works fine when using them in the manner I have described in this thread (and others).
I'd say there are a lot of folks who are over complicating something so simple.
Active Perception (or Perception Skill) and Passive Perception are exactly that. Active or Passive. Passive is "always-on" perception that represents you being alert to danger.
When goblin group hides near the road and the GM says "Roll everyone for perception"... even if they dont see anything they ll be suspicious and maybe even go metagaming like casting spells to add perception bonuses etc. That is why Passive exists. Until anyone says "I search..." their perception is 10+Perception. After that its Roll+Perception.
Why do they add 10 to passive... I do not know.
ZickZak wrote:
iserith wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
5e in general tries to SIMPLFY and SPEED UP game play.
As for how 5E actually works on multiple tries (as opposed to earlier editions) what they say about multiple attempts is this (DMG p.237, Multiple Ability Checks):
"Sometimes a player fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending 10 times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds in the task. However, no amount of repeating the check turns an impossible task into a successful one."
At the very LEAST this is an "effective Take 20" in half the time that 3.5E had. The question becomes what an "impossible task" is in this wording. If it means that "effectively Taking 20" needs to meet the DC of the task, that's a reasonable way to think of it. But it is also possible that it simply means that "If it is Impossible to find something because there is simply nothing there to find, you find nothing. Otherwise, you find what's there even if the "effective Take 20" isn't enough to normally find it."
Finding something generally moves the game along. You decide what "impossible" means in your game (unless this has been officially explained somwehere). Trying to climb a DC 50 overhanging sheer black ice cliff when your Strength (Athletics) bonus is only +3 seems rediculous, true. So I lean towards "effective Take 20" needs to meet the DC of the task. But if the difference is not so "obviously impossible", if "take 20" might only miss by a couple of points, I might decide that the team somehow manages to give him +2 in assistance, let him accomplish the task, and get the game moving.
Now, they go on to mention cases where you CAN'T try the same skill multiple times. Trying to trick the town guard once does NOT let you automatically succeed if you tell the guard the same lie 9 more times. There is, in 3.5 parlance, a penalty to failing with the lie the first time.
ZickZak wrote:
What the feat brings into question is the predictability of any skill in regards to how challenging to make the DC. If a white room, each challenge from level 1 to level 20 would have a set DC, so the feat in regards to passive checks would have a predictable outcome. But reality is each decision/skill check is made on the fly (after applying circrumstances) so DCs may vary, and therefore some may restrict the use of the feat; versus address the real problem of predictable DCs based on the challenge. CR suffers the same problem. There is not way to remove ad hoc decisions and judgements from the game.
Uchawi wrote:
iserith wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote: