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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8727671" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Both.If they used a different weapon, that weapon would be important instead.And are they the only characters in the party?One or both of them could be variant humans or custom races, or using one of the new backgrounds that start you with a feat, or there could be a house rule in play that everyone starts with a feat. And they could be a mixed-level party, or they could just be 4th+ level characters who don’t want to get stabbed by a goblin.Didn’t you just say it’s a bad plan if it only has a 60% chance of success?Then they must not have been paying much attention to how I rule perception works. Heck, I clarify the dungeon exploration procedures for players new to my table because I know a lot of DMs don’t use them and the players may not be familiar with them.Again, it’s a choice of what to be watching out for, and whether to watch out yourself or to work together with someone else to grant them advantage instead.I’ve only been dropping a line of discussion when it devolves into “well I think the rules say such-and-such” or “well I think that would be boring.” Because there’s really nothing I can do with that. We interpret the rules differently and we have different preferences, nothing either of us can say is going to change that. If you’re interested in discussing how my way of running things works or why I do it the way I do, or if you want to know how I would rule in a hypothetical situation I’m onboard for that. I have no interest in bickering over rules interpretations or mud-slinging at each other’s play preferences. If you were a player in a game I was running, I would be more concerned about differing interpretations of the rules and about you being bored by the gameplay, but you aren’t.Yes, because they were looking for threats (which the enemy is), not for secret doors (which are not threats).A character who is engaged in trying to notice threats will not be surprised by the enemies, unless those enemies beat the character’s passive Wis (perception) with a Dex (stealth) check. Characters who are not engaged in trying to notice threats will be surprised if an enemy tries to ambush them. Whether this ambush comes from behind a secret door, or behind a regular door, or around a corner, or out of the darkness is immaterial, the resolution process is the same in any case.My understanding was that their approach was to move to the center of the room. Again, if they wanted to take a different approach, they should have said so.<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♀️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2640.png" title="Woman shrugging    :woman_shrugging:" data-shortname=":woman_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> I thought “move to the center of the room” was reasonably specific. But if your intent was instead that they walked forward slowly while looking at the ground, I think saying that would have been a much clearer way to express that meaning.It was an entirely different statement. “Walk to the center of the room while looking at the ground” would also not have clearly expressed that you were slowly walking forward while looking at the ground. I don’t see what’s so difficult about simply saying what you mean.Did you say “walk to the center of the room while looking for traps?” If so I don’t recall that; it has been a long conversation and we have been saying simply “walk to the center of the room” for quite a while now. Anyway, I think in that case a bit more specificity would be warranted. That statement doesn’t actually convey more information about your method of searching than simply saying “I look for traps,” it only tells me that whatever you’re doing, you are also moving to the center of the room.Again, if you want to pose a scenario to me and ask how I would rule on it, great. If you want to know why I rule the way I do, great. If you want to argue about what the intent of the rules is or tell me that you don’t think the way I rule sounds fun? Nah. I’m not here for that. If a player at my table expressed to me that they thought I made a mistake or they didn’t find the game fun because of the way I rule something? That’s a concern I would want to address.I’m not presenting my rulings for critique. If you don’t like them, I’m sure you have your reasons. I don’t think I can change your mind, nor do I care to try.</blockquote>

Verification