Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benji" data-source="post: 7758592" data-attributes="member: 6793743">I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought. But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined.In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benji, post: 7758592, member: 6793743"] I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought. But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined. In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree? [/QUOTE]

Verification