Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6626870" data-attributes="member: 1210">There's nothing to compare. No Perception check can tell the difference between a gargoyle and a statue, per the False Appearance trait. And that's exactly the opposite of 'randomness'. If there's nothing in doubt, if the outcome is always the same (&quot;looks like a statue&quot;), that's absolute consistency.Oh noes, the dreaded &quot;Gotcha!&quot; Yeah, that happens sometimes; I'll go so far as to say it should happen sometimes. Lurkers above, mimics, piercers, ropers, trappers, even the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing- D&amp;D is, and always has been, full of monsters whose shtick is &quot;Don't notice me until you're too close!&quot; I don't have any problem with it, so long as there is some clue to the situation. The presence of statues is absolutely a clue. And you know what makes it so that pcs don't assume every statue is a monster? If you have statues in your game that aren't monsters. If 90% of the time a statue is just a statue, then there's no &quot;procedural&quot; thing involved. Change it up. There is nothing wrong with a gotcha. I mean, to be precise, there's nothing inherently and innately wrong with it; it may well be bad for some playstyles. That's fine! But assuming that holds true for everyone is not.&quot;There's a statue.&quot; Some players, either via luck or savvy, will figure out that they're gargoyles right away. You seem to be agreeing with me in principle but asserting that a clue isn't a clue unless it's blatant (or at least, blatant enough).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 6626870, member: 1210"] There's nothing to compare. No Perception check can tell the difference between a gargoyle and a statue, per the False Appearance trait. And that's exactly the [i]opposite[/i] of 'randomness'. If there's nothing in doubt, if the outcome is always the same ("looks like a statue"), that's absolute consistency. Oh noes, the dreaded "Gotcha!" Yeah, that happens sometimes; I'll go so far as to say it [i]should[/i] happen sometimes. Lurkers above, mimics, piercers, ropers, trappers, even the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing- D&D is, and always has been, full of monsters whose shtick is "Don't notice me until you're too close!" I don't have any problem with it, so long as there is some clue to the situation. The presence of statues is absolutely a clue. And you know what makes it so that pcs don't assume every statue is a monster? If you have statues in your game that aren't monsters. If 90% of the time a statue is just a statue, then there's no "procedural" thing involved. Change it up. [i]There is nothing wrong with a gotcha.[/i] I mean, to be precise, there's nothing inherently and innately wrong with it; it may well be bad for some playstyles. That's fine! But assuming that holds true for everyone is not. "There's a statue." Some players, either via luck or savvy, will figure out that they're gargoyles right away. You seem to be agreeing with me in principle but asserting that a clue isn't a clue unless it's blatant (or at least, blatant enough). [/QUOTE]

Verification