D&D 5E Active perception and the Observant feat

[Ath'kethin]

One of the players in my campaign took the Observant feat at first level (all the PCs in my campaign are human). He has a 14 Wisdom, so his passive Perception is 17. So far so good.

The issue came in when I called for everybody to roll Perception check against a DC of 15. He rolled a 12, which adding in his Wis modifier made his total 14.

Now, this is a new-ish player (he started playing in an AL game a few months ago, which is where I met him), and he is one of the most easygoing guys I've ever met. But we both found it strange that if he isn't paying attention he has a much better chance of success than if he is (passive Perception score vs. much lower modifier on the check).

I ruled that the feat grants advantage on Perception and Investigation checks, since a +5 modifier is roughly equivalent to having advantage on the roll. But it still seems like an odd sort of conundrum.

How did everyone else handle it? Did I miss something somewhere?

 

[Sunseeker]

I had this problem on a Monk with that feat. My passive skill was 22. I saw all the things. My active score was only a +5 WIS bonus to any given roll so the best I could roll without critting was a 24, only slightly better than my passive. I usually averaged somewhere between 14 and 17 for a success. I agree that the feat should also modify active perception.

We did not modify it. We fluffed the issues away by saying that folks with the feat are basically hyper-sensitive to noticing things when they're not distracted.

 

[Eubani]

How about results of Perception or Investigation checks cannot be lower than Passive result if you have the feat?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I had this problem on a Monk with that feat. My passive skill was 22. I saw all the things. My active score was only a +5 WIS bonus to any given roll so the best I could roll without critting was a 24, only slightly better than my passive. I usually averaged somewhere between 14 and 17 for a success. I agree that the feat should also modify active perception.

We did not modify it. We fluffed the issues away by saying that folks with the feat are basically hyper-sensitive to noticing things when they're not distracted.

How is it possible that your active is +5 and your passive is 22? The difference is 7. Either your active is +7 or your passive 20.


Oh... and the dilemma: There should never be a situation where you have everyone roll active checks by RAW. (Except fpr group checks maybe). In thise situations granting advantage seems reasonable because noone used an action to actively search. You just let them roll their passive checks... i know that sounds strange...

I am now using following rule: When something can be found with an active check, i let it be found with a passive check one difficulty higher (DC +5) if there is a reasonable chance to notice something by just passing by.

 

[pukunui]

Passive checks aren't just for when you're "not paying attention". They also represent repeated activity. Like the old "take 10" rule from previous editions. Someone with the Observant feat is both more generally aware of their surroundings and also good at finding and figuring things out when given enough time, but no better at it than anyone else when just taking a moment to do a quick check.

 

[discosoc]

I think you're handling perception wrong.

In 5th edition, passive perception is sort of the default based on normal "awareness." So like, walking through the market to buy some apples, the pickpocket would have to roll against your passive perception to steal from you without being noticed. In this case, the characters passive perception score would a base of 10, plus 2 for WIS, plus 5 for the observant feat, resulting in the 17 passive perception score.

But if you know that market is filled with pickpockets, you might tell the GM that you're paying close attention to your pouches while on your way to the apple cart. That's the kind of thing that would probably translate to an "advantage," and according to page 175 of the PH, having advantage grants a +5 to passive scores. This would result in a passive perception of 22, making the pickpocket's job harder now that his target is specifically watching out for this kind of thing. The possible downside is that perhaps the players focus on watching for thieves results in missing something else that happens nearby.

I bring this up because GM's with experience in older editions would probably handle the second scenario with opposed checks, rather than using the built in passive mechanic as intended. So then you have a pickpocket stalking his target, and the target rolls bad on perception, resulting in weird situations that don't always make sense. Passive score, and perception in particular, are meant to handle this in the first place.

The whole thing is meant to avoid weird situations of the past where the guy is walking through the market, and the GM asks for a perception roll. He fails, and now the player is wondering what that was all about, and starts getting suspicious or paranoid, even though his character has no clue something is wrong.

Finally, in the time where you do need to make active perception checks for some reason, like if a player wants to search a room for a hidden key with a DC 15, it's totally possible that they fail even though their passive perception is higher. Why does that make sense? How many times have you gone searching for something in your house, like keys, tearing the place up because you *know* you put them on the counter when you got home, only to give up and find them 2 hours later in the clothes hamper? Those kinds of things do happen.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...we both found it strange that if he isn't paying attention he has a much better chance of success than if he is (passive Perception score vs. much lower modifier on the check).

That's not what a passive check represents. It is the player that is passive by not rolling dice, not the character that is passive by not trying - the character is paying attention when passive perception is used, the player just doesn't roll any dice.

This is because the game assumes that characters are constantly paying attention to their surroundings, so they'd technically be making perception checks over and over endlessly until they close their eyes and/or plug their ears. Which is where the passive check mechanic comes in, taking a particular assumed result of those constant rolls.

However, considering the feat as granting the character advantage on Perception and Investigation checks is a good idea, in my opinion, because then it provides the same effect for the character whether the player is or isn't rolling dice (since having advantage is a +5 bonus on passive checks, just like what the feat gives) - the only downside of this is that with the feats as written, if a character had advantage and the normal benefit of the feat, their passive check would be 20 + their Perception modifier.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One of the players in my campaign took the Observant feat at first level (all the PCs in my campaign are human). He has a 14 Wisdom, so his passive Perception is 17. So far so good.

The issue came in when I called for everybody to roll Perception check against a DC of 15. He rolled a 12, which adding in his Wis modifier made his total 14.

Now, this is a new-ish player (he started playing in an AL game a few months ago, which is where I met him), and he is one of the most easygoing guys I've ever met. But we both found it strange that if he isn't paying attention he has a much better chance of success than if he is (passive Perception score vs. much lower modifier on the check).

I ruled that the feat grants advantage on Perception and Investigation checks, since a +5 modifier is roughly equivalent to having advantage on the roll. But it still seems like an odd sort of conundrum.

How did everyone else handle it? Did I miss something somewhere?

So, if the DC to notice whatever the check was for was 17 or less, the character notices it without rolling. If it's more, the player rolls. If he rolls a 14, he doesn't notice. The feat represents that fact that you have a more heightened awareness of your general surroundings at all times, but it doesn't make you better when you are specifically looking. If it did that, then it would be largely broken against stealth. It would take a similarly focused stealth build to achieve even chances of sneaking, and, unless the DM builds it, that doesn't exist in the MM.

 

[BoldItalic]

If you have decided that the DC for noticing a particular thing is 15 knowing that one of the PCs has a Passive Perception of 17, you have already decided ipso facto that he will automatically spot the thing. Just announce that the thing is there and that he has spotted it. You don't need to call for a perception check at all, so the problem doesn't arise.

Perception checks, like all other checks, are a device to help the DM decide what to narrate. We let the players roll the dice to give them the illusion of being involved, but it would have the same effect on the narrative if the DM rolled them all himself. You either tell the players the thing is there, or you don't.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think the difference is because of your understanding of Passive Perception.

Passive Perception is not "when the character is not paying attention."

It is "when the GM and players don't want to roll a whole pile of dice." or "When the GM want's to surprise the players (as opposed to their characters)."

From the PHB, page 175: A check can represetn 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 without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

For example, roling Perception to check a wall for traps should really be done once every 10 or 20 feet. Now imaging doing that in a cavern half a mile long.

For example, rolling Perception to find a pickpocket, in a town where there are hundreds of thieves operating.

The Observant feat is supposed to give the player a bonus when the GM is using Passive rolls. If the GM never uses Passive rolls (some don't) then the Observant feat is less useful. In my opinion, making the bonus apply to Active Perception checks would be too powerful.