Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Automatic Success on Passive Perception and the like; your thoughts?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ParanoydStyle" data-source="post: 7793612" data-attributes="member: 6984451"><p>This is an <strong><em>excellent</em></strong> rule 0 and I'm proud of WotC for putting it in 5E. In practice, I imagine most tables play in a way more consistent with calling for rolls if "ANY OF" those three things are true. That has been my experience. (And there are still plenty of GMs making the rookie mistake of calling for Perception checks or whatever for information that characters NEED in order to advance the plot/quest, so when they come up fail the GM is like "oh <s>s-word</s> crap" because now how the hell do we proceed with this adventure?)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This may well be in RAW, but whether it is or not, I'm not a fan of it. Penalizing Passive Perception due to marching order is fine. Disallowing it entirely just because you're in the back or the middle or whatever is a bridge too far however. If you are exceptionally perceptive, that isn't going to be entirely neutralized by the fact that one of your five senses that make up your overall perception (sight) is partially restricted by a few guys ahead of you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I'm really not a fan of this approach because the PC(s) with high passive perception kind of get screwed if they "may act to notice additional details in the environment". For starters, "may act" indicates active perception indicates the precise mathematical opposite of PASSIVE perception. But secondly, I feel like with no clue as to what actions to take to notice additional details, this foments a very "mother may I" style of play. Their characters would and should know what these actions are due to their high Passive Perception, so it's a case of denying players knowledge their characters would have, and then, well, when push comes to shove, if they should know what actions to take to notice additional details because of a high PP (which I believe they should), then simply letting them automatically take and succeed at those actions is much more efficient and faster.</p><p></p><p>As a DM, an upside I think I should find with this approach is that if Thornir the Barbarian doesn't notice something, the party will never see it coming. After receiving a few smacks on the nose this way, the party should realize they can't rely entirely on Thornir's PP of 21.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ParanoydStyle, post: 7793612, member: 6984451"] This is an [B][I]excellent[/I][/B] rule 0 and I'm proud of WotC for putting it in 5E. In practice, I imagine most tables play in a way more consistent with calling for rolls if "ANY OF" those three things are true. That has been my experience. (And there are still plenty of GMs making the rookie mistake of calling for Perception checks or whatever for information that characters NEED in order to advance the plot/quest, so when they come up fail the GM is like "oh [S]s-word[/S] crap" because now how the hell do we proceed with this adventure?) This may well be in RAW, but whether it is or not, I'm not a fan of it. Penalizing Passive Perception due to marching order is fine. Disallowing it entirely just because you're in the back or the middle or whatever is a bridge too far however. If you are exceptionally perceptive, that isn't going to be entirely neutralized by the fact that one of your five senses that make up your overall perception (sight) is partially restricted by a few guys ahead of you. See, I'm really not a fan of this approach because the PC(s) with high passive perception kind of get screwed if they "may act to notice additional details in the environment". For starters, "may act" indicates active perception indicates the precise mathematical opposite of PASSIVE perception. But secondly, I feel like with no clue as to what actions to take to notice additional details, this foments a very "mother may I" style of play. Their characters would and should know what these actions are due to their high Passive Perception, so it's a case of denying players knowledge their characters would have, and then, well, when push comes to shove, if they should know what actions to take to notice additional details because of a high PP (which I believe they should), then simply letting them automatically take and succeed at those actions is much more efficient and faster. As a DM, an upside I think I should find with this approach is that if Thornir the Barbarian doesn't notice something, the party will never see it coming. After receiving a few smacks on the nose this way, the party should realize they can't rely entirely on Thornir's PP of 21. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Automatic Success on Passive Perception and the like; your thoughts?
Top