Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benji" data-source="post: 7758718" data-attributes="member: 6793743">Right, I have an example. It has numbers and it's quite long but it serves to demonstrate my concerns with this. I'd like to say I think you're right some of this is just taste and framing but here's where I think it can become problematic. SO hang on with me and I think you'll see where I am coming from:A group of five 5th level heroes are sneaking through a dungeon. They have a party member who is maxed out: has a wisdom of 20 and is proficent in perception. They have announced the are keeping watch. They enter a room with several column in it and behind one is an drow assassin - using the assassin statblock, which xanathar's says is 'balanced'. The group announce they are still keeping watch and moving through the room. there are a few ways to handle this -a) The DM is a bit railroady and decides to frame the attack as a surprise without actually using any rules.b) We do things the way I undrrstand iserith's stance - the players use their passive perception when the attack happens. The are keeping watch and being alert but the dm isn't going to ask for a perception checkc) We do it the way I'd do it - The  skill example for perception on PG178 of the players handbooks suggests that you can make a perception roll to detect hidden creatures - we allow a rolld) You want to frame this encounter but are a 'narrative' dm and want to avoid being the person from example a)So let's run through this - a) the assassin attacks and becuase no dice are rolled, it has surprise, uses it's abilities and sneak attacks/posions someone and kills them without the players having any agency. The feel railroaded.In b) the dm allows passive perception. Given the assassin has a +11 in stealth, the DM will beat the highest perception on a roll of 7. or if the dm just wants to frame it as an 'Average challenge' There's a high chance the assassin does the same functional thing as example a) except the player this time said they were keeping watch but they functionally had no input in the ambush. the dm either rolled a dice or as I understand the way some people play it, eyeballed and average score for the assassin (21) and ruled a successful ambush. Players feel they had no agency.c) players roll perception checks at DM's behest to spot the assassin in hiding. Their range of failure success on the highest party member is now between 9 and 28. they might succeed or fail but they felt like the fact they were keeping check had an in world effect. If they succeed, it's because they were allowed to roll against a 'gate'. if they failed they still feel like they had a chance to effect the outcome but understand they at least had a run at the gate.d) the dm doesn't want the assassin to kill anyone and decides to frame it as no surprise or only a few people surprised. In this case, why both with stealth as a score? Why bother with these rules at all?I think some of my problem comes with 'we have to stick to the rules. but if I feel like not using the rules and framing something pre-combat or socially instead, that's fine'. it's a double standard in my mind.</blockquote>

Verification