D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?

[Pathkeeper24601]

This thread is Godzilla vs. Mothra for me now.

I'm not really rooting for either side any more, just watching the destruction of a thriving metrop- er, thread.

I say more like Godzilla vs. King Kong, that way each side can produce the appropriate ending to go with their view.

 

[Oofta]

You mean the invisible figurine on a shelf in a hospital?

If you aren't going to address the question, I'm done. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted to have a conversation.

A two foot tall statue is not a "figurine", nobody mentioned a hospital. I was thinking more of a possible scenario I might throw at my group, a sort of scavenger hunt for lawn gnome statues.

But change the statue to a 10 foot tall statue on a solid stone floor in a room that doesn't somehow grant your characters sonar and it doesn't change anything. Unless some environmental factor is interacting with the statue in a way that could possibly be perceived, my ruling would be the same.

I still see no difference between being able to see something is different from not being able to see something. Well, one of those instances you're can't see the object and in the other you can't see the object...ummm ... wait.

 

[mikebr99]

If I had a player that put that much effort into perception and didn't notice stuff, I would be looking for new players.

Ditto!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

If I had a player that put that much effort into perception and didn't notice stuff, I would be looking for new players.

Seriously? You don't want someone to enjoy the game the way they want to enjoy the game because it offends you?

Getting sky high perception checks is not that difficult. There's another player in the game my wife runs that has done similar. I think the issue is the Observant feat, not that some players enjoy different aspects of the game than I.

 

[MiraMels]

There's a 2 foot tall invisible lawn gnome statue on an otherwise clean shelf.

• No dust, no cobwebs, the shelf is not bending under the weight of the statue, nothing.
• You don't have a bat's sonar.
• You don't have keen enough hearing to hear the air molecules bouncing off of it.
• It doesn't have a unique smell, it's not making any noise.
• It's not sparking magic gnome dust to give away it's position.
• Its' a clean room and there's not enough dust floating in the air to give away it's position
• There's no pigeon sitting on top of it, no spider crawling over it or anything else

How could you possibly notice it unless you happen to bump into it?

But my answer included examples that ran the gamut, from being undetectable without special abilities to it being obvious there was something you couldn't see with options in between. The undetectable statue is just one possibility of many.

I don't understand why it bothers you that there's a chance the DM may show some creativity and think about how people would perceive the world around them.

The "invisible object in the room" has featured in more than one game I've played, and is a pretty common trope of fantasy/sci-fi/comics.

It's also off topic of creatures running around in combat turning invisible, and is something simply not covered by the rules. When the rules are silent, I use my best judgement. I can't think of anything else to add.

The invisibility spell in the Player's Handbook can't be cast on objects, only creatures.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

The invisibility spell in the Player's Handbook can't be cast on objects, only creatures.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

<facepalm>. It's magic dude. Did I say I was using the invisibility spell?

OK, it's a short gargoyle. Gargoyles are indistinguishable from statues when at rest.

 

[Corwin]

If you aren't going to address the question, I'm done. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted to have a conversation.

Have you been? To me its felt more like you've been trying to win the internets by not being forthcoming until it suits your argument. But that might just be me being picky about liking to have all the facts and such.

A two foot tall statue is not a "figurine", nobody mentioned a hospital.

Yeah. "Invisible statue in a room" isn't evocative at all... What you later reveal to be the actual truth was totally what most of us were thinking when you originally stated it...

But change the statue to a 10 foot tall statue on a solid stone floor in a room that doesn't somehow grant your characters sonar and it doesn't change anything. Unless some environmental factor is interacting with the statue in a way that could possibly be perceived, my ruling would be the same.

Agreed, actually. The problem really, to me at least, has been that this boils down to a DM arbitrarily deciding there can't possibly be any environmental factors discernible. Not even minuscule ones noticeable to a PC with a PP of 30!

I still see no difference between being able to see something is different from not being able to see something. Well, one of those instances you're can't see the object and in the other you can't see the object...ummm ... wait.

I actually agree with you that a DM can fine-tune gotcha scenarios to justify removing even the slimmest chance of PC success. Its not even difficult. Arbitrarily declaring such a room is devoid of clues, even tiny or serendipitous ones, is child's play for a DM. You totally have the power to do that.

 

[Corwin]

Seriously? You don't want someone to enjoy the game the way they want to enjoy the game because it offends you?

Actually, I believe the opposite was laid out as the point.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Seriously? You don't want someone to enjoy the game the way they want to enjoy the game because it offends you?

Getting sky high perception checks is not that difficult. There's another player in the game my wife runs that has done similar. I think the issue is the Observant feat, not that some players enjoy different aspects of the game than I.

If he enjoys wasting those resources, that is fine. The one that gets me is the Sentinel Shield. It is magic enough to determine intent of hidden creatures around you (can't be surprised) isn't like some form of sonar?

DM - You look into and see an empty room
Perceptive Player - I don't sense anything, there must be something there. Everybody line up and shuffle across. Which one of us trips?

 

[Oofta]

Agreed, actually. The problem really, to me at least, has been that this boils down to a DM arbitrarily deciding there can't possibly be any environmental factors discernible. Not even minuscule ones noticeable to a PC with a PP of 30!

Yes, the DM decides the DC of skill checks. That's kind of a core feature of the game. If there is no chance of success or failure there's no need to ask for the check.

I actually agree with you that a DM can fine-tune gotcha scenarios to justify removing even the slimmest chance of PC success. Its not even difficult. Arbitrarily declaring such a room is devoid of clues, even tiny or serendipitous ones, is child's play for a DM. You totally have the power to do that.

Right ... a scavenger hunt where I want the PCs to do something other than walk into a room and automatically know where everything is a "gotcha".

Setting up obstacles for the PCs to overcome is a big part of the game. I don't see why you have such a problem with it.

See, this is why I posted many, many pages ago that having this conversation wasn't worth having. You think a high enough perception somehow gives people DareDevil like senses. That setting up a decent sized room that is not covered with dust is an abuse of power.

We've done this dance before, no answer is going to satisfy you, any example is going to be nit-picked over irrelevant details.

We disagree. That's all. Good gaming!