Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8546268" data-attributes="member: 97077">As the subsequent poster pointed out, it's pretty clear using "natural language" that the "group's chance" distinction is a casual term, not a game term. Odd that you don't apply your own argument for "natural language" here despite being the first to broach that matter in this thread (as I recall).Further, I have never said they don't have a passive Perception score, not once. What I'm saying is that their score doesn't apply to resolving what happens when they run afoul of a trap or hidden monsters while engaged in certain other tasks. It means there is no passive check at all - they simply fail to notice. Checks, passive or otherwise, only come into play when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The rule in this case takes away the uncertainty as to the outcome - they just fail. No uncertainty, no check.As well, JC failing to mention the times when passive Perception doesn't apply means nothing where the rules are concerned. They say what they say, regardless of what JC said extemporaneously on a podcast. If you know anything about the history of JC's rulings (and reversals of those rulings and the reversals of the reversals), by the way, you might not be so quick to assert his words as evidence of what the rules actually say.Finally, Perception doesn't "bother" me as you keep erroneously saying. I've never said that, not once. Some DMs have issues with it often because they aren't taking all the rules into account and therefore making it stronger than may be intended. For those DMs, a solution is to simply include meaningful trade-offs as laid out in the rules. Another solution might be to keep it strong - or even make it stronger by having every monster try to surprise the PCs (watch out for that mammoth hiding behind the tree!) - then institute a social agreement that players should not invest in the things the DM is incentivizing without some kind of veneer of characterization or backstory. For my part, that is an unnecessary kluge that works against the natural human inclination to do what is incentivized.</blockquote>

Verification