NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7807958" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I'm glad you agree that monsters can take actions too. Since monsters don't need to declare their actions at all, I think that example by itself proves that there exist ability checks under the 5e rules that are not made in response to action declarations.I also note that several of your other responses to my specific examples depend on approaches you adopt at your table that appear to me to be inconsistent with the 5e rules. In particular, you apparently allow characters to declare actions when it is not their turn (to resist grapples, keep their balance). That's awesome (and I like the idea!), but I see no support for permitting off-turn action declarations in the 5e rules. You also apparently deny characters their passive perception as a defense against enemies trying to sneak up on them even in situations other than those listed in Activities While Travelling. Again, that's great--I'm sure tweaking the list of activities that deny characters their passive perception makes the game more fun for you and your players at your table.But it is my understanding that you were trying to refute, in the general case, my examples of places where the 5e rules either permit or call for ability checks other than in response to an action declaration. I don't see how offering rebuttals that depend on the specific ways you adapt the rules at your table says anything about the general case.(Emphasis added.) I do not agree that the bolded claim is supported by the 5e rules. I acknowledge that it is true at your table, and probably at many of the tables of other posters in this thread. But I remain unconvinced that it is true in the general case of a generic table trying to play by the rules in the book. In other words, I don't see anything in the text of the rules that shows the bolded claim to be true.I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that you're treating the bolded claim as a foundational assumption and interpreting the other 5e rules in a way that compliments that assumption. There's nothing wrong with that--I'm sure that I also interpret the 5e rules based on foundational assumptions. (And you have a leg up on me in that you've identified and articulated yours so precisely!) I simply don't see why your arguments that the 5e rules require a particular approach to ability checks should be persuasive to anyone who isn't willing to make the same foundational assumption that you appear to be making.</blockquote>

Verification