Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agamon" data-source="post: 6367448" data-attributes="member: 184"><p>That's certainly not an invalid way to do it, but I can see a case for using a passive check, for the first two situations, anyway (agreed that if there's no way to know a spell has been cast, there should be no check).  The passive check simulates what you know off the top of your head, from what the caster is doing and saying, to the effects the happen because of it.  I see rolling as taking the facts and considering the situation, actually thinking about it for a moment.  Thus why the rolled check takes an action.</p></blockquote><p></p>