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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8727618" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Because you haven't been dismissing my every concern about player's missing things or making bad calls with limited information? Or because you didn't say that since you didn't get advantage on the roll and didn't fail forward that there was no reason for you to have even listened to the RP scene your DM had set up? Which one is the misrepresentation? It isn't, it could be any weapon. It is just the weapon they use to kill monsters happens to be a sword.It was a fighter and a bard, are either of those wisdom casters? They are worried about being stabbed by a goblin, does that sound like characters high enough level to have a feat? Of course they aren't 4th level. And you are correct, they would have only a 45% chance, in the original plan that's why the bard gave inspiration, that would (on average) give them a 60% chance. Maybe more. But that wasn't what you were asking, you were asking why I was assuming the Passive would fail. There you go.They figured they would get to roll and use bardic inspiration originally.I am aware you said you consider it a different activity. I've explained why I don't. Map making isn't a check, so they should be the person with the lowest wisdom, and everyone else is making some version of passive wisdom checks. So again, is that really a "choice" or is it the assumed default state, since we have one person doing something different than passive perceptionRight, but here we are outside of a game, discussing DMing techniques, and the response seems to consistently be "The DM makes the call, and I accept that" which isn't true, since you will disagree with them and talk about that with them outside of the game, like in the situation we are in right now.Of course it is a hazard, for exactly the reason I stated. It is a potential hiding place for enemies. You also, when I asked if you would accept enemies successfully ambushing the party because they came from a secret door, said "I would disagree that such a ruling is consistent with either the letter or intent of the rules," So, how does this work exactly? Does the player who is looking for threats only notice the secret door after the enemy has opened it and begins pouring out? That's a successful ambush of the party, which you claimed was against the letter and intent of the rules. But they can't notice it before they open the secret door, because that would be noticing a secret door, which they aren't allowed to do. So, it is against your understanding of the rules for the ambush to succeed, and against your understanding of the rules for it to fail,They were walking and looking for traps, why would you assume their approach wouldn't be to go carefully forward and look for traps? This has been part of my point, for all the talk of "I don't assume the approach" you absolutely do. You pictured a movie in your head that didn't include "carefully" and "ground". So for something that you said was absolutely acceptable, turns out is wasn't enough detail.Huh, and now it isn't a completely different conversation. The method of moving didn't matter. So I guess it was just the "looking at the ground" that allowed them to change the conversation. Must have been looking for those mid-air traps."walk to the center of the room LOOKING FOR TRAPS" Funny how you keep forgetting to include that, maybe because that might indicate being careful and looking at the ground where traps might be? Hence why I've been saying I'd call for a check to give them the chance to see the trap. Because I assumed a player who said they were LOOKING FOR TRAPS would act in a manner that would allow them to LOOK FOR TRAPSSo you are willing to discuss DMing and DMing techniques... just not here? Because you've met my criticisms many times with "The DM makes the rulings and the players accept them" which isn't discussing them.Which makes it impossible to discuss critiques of your rules, because you don't care. You don't assume the other side has good reasons, they just "don't like it".</blockquote>

Verification