Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7789480" data-attributes="member: 16814">Passive checks are what the character does for repeated tasks over time.&nbsp; Like keeping watch while travelling -- you get a passive check to notice threats.&nbsp; If you follow the roles in the DMG for activities while travelling, not everyone's paying attention for threats.&nbsp; Some are mapping, or tracking, or foraging, and they either don't get a passive check to notice a danger or have disadvantage on their passive checks due to distraction (and DM whim).&nbsp; So, already, in the rules, we're in a different place than you're saying passive checks are.&nbsp; Passive checks are not a floor for active checks, they represent the result of a constant effort averaged over time.&nbsp; Actively doing something engaging a specific course of action that may or may not be uncertain -- the DM won't know until the course of action is presented to them.&nbsp; And, asking for a check is not a course of action, it's a tool to resolve uncertainty in a course of action.So, yes, if you play such that NPCs make Deception rolls against players, you have options for this.&nbsp; If the PCs are not declaring actions to look for falsehoods, then a Deception check may be made against the passive score -- if the DM determines the outcome is uncertain to begin with.&nbsp; Again, the rules state the DM determines if uncertainty exists and only then may a check occur.&nbsp; If the players declare actions because the players have become suspicious, then an Insight check may be called for if the DM determines the specific action is uncertain and has a cost for failure.&nbsp; And cost for failure is a big requirement.&nbsp; If there's no cost, why roll?&nbsp; The action can be repeated until successful because there's no cost.&nbsp; So, something must be a cost on a failure.&nbsp; I don't see what's the cost for failure for the Insight check -- is the player left uncertain if there's a lie on a fail, because that seems the same as the starting point.&nbsp; Are you, the DM, telling the player what their character thinks?&nbsp; That violates the one authority the player has in D&amp;D -- what their character thinks and tries to do.&nbsp; What are you doing on a failed check that results in a cost for the action?&nbsp; Again, if nothing, why roll?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7789480, member: 16814"] Passive checks are what the character does for repeated tasks over time. Like keeping watch while travelling -- you get a passive check to notice threats. If you follow the roles in the DMG for activities while travelling, not everyone's paying attention for threats. Some are mapping, or tracking, or foraging, and they either don't get a passive check to notice a danger or have disadvantage on their passive checks due to distraction (and DM whim). So, already, in the rules, we're in a different place than you're saying passive checks are. Passive checks are not a floor for active checks, they represent the result of a constant effort averaged over time. Actively doing something engaging a specific course of action that may or may not be uncertain -- the DM won't know until the course of action is presented to them. And, asking for a check is not a course of action, it's a tool to resolve uncertainty in a course of action. So, yes, if you play such that NPCs make Deception rolls against players, you have options for this. If the PCs are not declaring actions to look for falsehoods, then a Deception check may be made against the passive score -- if the DM determines the outcome is uncertain to begin with. Again, the rules state the DM determines if uncertainty exists and only then may a check occur. If the players declare actions because the players have become suspicious, then an Insight check may be called for if the DM determines the specific action is uncertain and has a cost for failure. And cost for failure is a big requirement. If there's no cost, why roll? The action can be repeated until successful because there's no cost. So, something must be a cost on a failure. I don't see what's the cost for failure for the Insight check -- is the player left uncertain if there's a lie on a fail, because that seems the same as the starting point. Are you, the DM, telling the player what their character thinks? That violates the one authority the player has in D&D -- what their character thinks and tries to do. What are you doing on a failed check that results in a cost for the action? Again, if nothing, why roll? [/QUOTE]

Verification