Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7488504" data-attributes="member: 16814">No.&nbsp; No.Here's the first things I said to you on this topic:As you can see, I didn't say don't make the assumption, I said if you do make it, don't roll.&nbsp; This is because the basic play procedure is only roll if it's an uncertain outcome.&nbsp; If you're going to assume a case where it's not uncertain (the golem is immobile, silent and invisible) then you should not roll.&nbsp; If you do roll, don't assume the golem is immobile and silent -- instead narrate the result of the roll.I can't really see how to say this any more simply.&nbsp; No, the logical conclusion is what I said above.&nbsp; If you decide the result of the golem hiding is uncertain and roll (and choose to use a passive roll, for some reason), then narrate the result of the roll.&nbsp; If the check is such that everyone in the party will notice, DO NOT describe the golem as perfectly still and silent -- the golem did something to be noticed, so narrate that something, whatever it is.&nbsp; Again, the problem here is the assumption golems are silent when immobile and then rolling as if the outcome is uncertain.&nbsp; Don't do this.Now you're off somewhere strange.&nbsp; There's absolutely no rule that you cannot make ability checks out of combat.&nbsp; If you play that you have to be in combat to make an ability check, do you roll for initiative prior to haggling with a merchant?&nbsp; You can hide out of combat.&nbsp; You can make a roll out of combat.&nbsp; This is a strange argument you're making.The flavor text for a golem says nothing about what kinds of noise it may make of if it is silent when standing still.&nbsp; What a 1984 module says about iron golems in the context of a railroaded encounter doesn't really seem to have any bearing on how you do it in 5e, does it?&nbsp; It might explain some of your arguments, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7488504, member: 16814"] No. No. Here's the first things I said to you on this topic: As you can see, I didn't say don't make the assumption, I said [I]if you do make it[/I], don't roll. This is because the basic play procedure is only roll if it's an uncertain outcome. If you're going to assume a case where it's not uncertain (the golem is immobile, silent and invisible) then you should not roll. If you do roll, don't assume the golem is immobile and silent -- instead narrate the result of the roll. I can't really see how to say this any more simply. No, the logical conclusion is what I said above. If you decide the result of the golem hiding is uncertain and roll (and choose to use a passive roll, for some reason), then narrate the result of the roll. If the check is such that everyone in the party will notice, DO NOT describe the golem as perfectly still and silent -- the golem did something to be noticed, so narrate that something, whatever it is. Again, the problem here is the assumption golems are silent when immobile and then rolling as if the outcome is uncertain. Don't do this. Now you're off somewhere strange. There's absolutely no rule that you cannot make ability checks out of combat. If you play that you have to be in combat to make an ability check, do you roll for initiative prior to haggling with a merchant? You can hide out of combat. You can make a roll out of combat. This is a strange argument you're making. The flavor text for a golem says nothing about what kinds of noise it may make of if it is silent when standing still. What a 1984 module says about iron golems in the context of a railroaded encounter doesn't really seem to have any bearing on how you do it in 5e, does it? It might explain some of your arguments, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification