Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8727260" data-attributes="member: 6801228">At this point I'm just going to start snipping large parts of your responses. I'm tired of trying to get you to engage in a fruitful discussion where all you do is claim you don't know or don't understand which then leads to you either dismissing the things I explain as "Great, you have different preferences, don't care" , "I understood that all along" or "You have psychological issues that prevent you from playing my way" None of those is actually helpful, and I find a few of them either insulting or infuriating depending on the context, so I'm done trying to explain those things to you.The only example I can recall you giving was the dragon-slaying arrow, which had no importance to the location because it only became important when the players randomly faced a dragon and used the arrow to slay it. By that logic the Fighter's Sword is important because they used it to kill monsters. But the fighter's sword isn't actually important.Because as established, the PCs likely have a 14 passive perception. With the Goblin rolling a +6 the Goblin succeeds 60% of the time. A plan that will fail 60% of the time isn't a good plan.Also, if we have gotten to the point of the players wanting to roll to find something, then we have ALREADY failed the passive check, because if they succeeded the passive check, they won't want to roll, because they found the thing.Is it really? Typical party is 4 people. One person is drawing the map. That leaves 3 people. No one is navigating. No one is foraging for food. No one is tracking. That is the entire list of PHB actions to do while traveling, so did those three players make a choice by not all four of them drawing the same map? Or is remaining alert to the environment simply the default option?Ignoring the double speak of you accepting the DM's call but then bringing it up later because you don't accept it, this means that you agree there is no practical difference between looking for ambushes and looking for secret doors, because you need to find secret doors to prevent some ambushes.Or do you actually disagree that looking ambushes and looking for secret doors is the same action. You can't have it both ways.Either Noticing Threats includes hidden creatures, traps, hazards, ambushes and secret doors (because you can be ambushed from a secret door) or it doesn't, and not having a player constantly declare they are looking for secret doors and only secret doors means that you are opening yourself up to being ambushed from a secret door because you weren't looking for it so your Passive Perception never applied.Yes it does.I love how it always comes to this. It always comes to something absurd that could never work. I guess walking carefully forward while looking at the ground is the equivalent of screaming at shoe laces to tie themselves. I should go on nation television, I'm an impossible man.I also seems to have no effect on whether or not you can notice the trap, walk slow, crawl on your belly, spring, teleport. Doesn't matter, you will never see the trap.The intention of the action was to look for traps. So, yes. When they spot the trap, they stop. The PC isn't a robot that must knowingly step on a hazard because they declared their movement before noticing the hazard. I will guarantee you no player will be upset their movement was interrupted to prevent them from triggering a trap and DEMAND that they be allowed to trigger that trap.Funny how certain you are that you were absolutely correct in that scenario.So, you just didn't argue it at the table. You don't actually accept their ruling, and in fact used it as an example of Poor DMing.Which makes it strange to me that you then take this conversation, where we are not at a table, and just constantly assert that I should just accept the DMs ruling and that I cannot discuss the pros and cons of the approach. It seems you are perfectly fine disagreeing and discussing when you feel you are in the right, but not when someone challenges that.That is how you resolve checks right? Low rolls fail and high rolls succeed?Again. You preach that the DM is allowed to make the rulings they want, and we should accept the DMs rulings. But when those rulings are what you want... then it is "whatever the octupus in the DM's brain decided the random numbers meant" You utterly dismiss them as unimportant, uncaring and poor DMing... because you disagree with it. Different Strokes, except you get to deride them as being a bad approach.</blockquote>

Verification