Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8728900" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Not every single game of DnD involves 5 to 6 people, yes this is a true statement. Also, again, how is proficiency and a 14 wisdom not "investing much" in perception. You have built characters, you know how the system works. Assuming standard array because rolling is random the highest four scores are 15, 14, 13, 12. Assuming Tasha's because we don't want to assume race, so you have a +2 and a +1. Fighter is going to need either Dex or strength, and con. No matter how you slice those scores and those modifiers, you only have three options. Either at 14, wisdom is tied for your highest stat (The 15 does not make a meaningful difference, both give a mod of +2. Option two, at a 14 wisdom is tied for your second highest stat, or option 3 for some unknownable reason you make your wisdom a 16 and your highest stat. Option 3 is really a non-starter, because no fighter ability or subclass I can think of uses wisdom. Meanwhile a fighter gets only 4 skills, so getting perception proficiency is 25% of all their skill profs. So, the fighter is likely using 25% of the skills and their second highest score. That's a low investment to you? The bard is actually even worse, because as a full caster they need Charisma, then they need Dex for AC, then they need con, making Wisdom a fourth consideration. And they have the exact same options. Either it is tied for their highest, it is their second highest and they have dropped dex or con to a +1, or they have insanely chosen wisdom as their highest score. They are slightly better on skills, they get 5, but it is still 20% of their skill options. Which is still a large investment.And frankly, if you are finding every single character in your games is making wisdom their highest score, regardless of their classes actual use for the score? Then that is a bad sign about your games, because it means all your players see Passive Perception as the single most important aspect of their characters, more important than even their class abilities.Never said it was impossible. But saying "I don't see a problem because I just added a level 4 variant human cleric with alert and skill expert who has a higher passive perception" is ignoring the spirit of the conversation to score cheap points because it is "possible"I don't see why I have to keep repeating myself. The options, including your houserule are1) Look for Danger (automatic)2) Help someone look for danger3) Look for secret doors4) Make a mapWhich, under my rules, looks like1) Look for Danger (automatic)2) Make a mapWhen you have more than 1 person in the party, then two options isn't a "choice" since multiple maps is pointless. And even with your rules, half the options are looking for danger. The only reason you don't have all four options picked is because we established a four-man team, and you would have auto-suprise hit the back row if they didn't have a person looking for danger in front and a person looking for danger in back, requiring at least two people. Which makes the only choice being if the third lowest wisdom score helps the back, helps the front, or thinks they have a chance to locate any random secret doors. So, again, I don't see "looking for danger" as a choice, because it is the default option. Heck, the PHB calls it out that PCs are going to be looking for danger unless they are specifically doing something else. It is their baseline state.Only because every time I try and figure out what is needed for your technique, we end up needing more and more detail lest the players do the wrong thing and get punished for it. That's not on me. That's on you.So now your houserule system is going to be 1) Look for monsters (automatic?)2) Help someone look for monsters3) Look for traps and secret doors4) Help someone look for traps and secret doors5) Make a mapAnd with needing people in front and in back looking for monsters, how exactly is a 4-man party supposed to cover these? It would have to be that you have 1 person make the map (can't get lost), 2 people looking for monsters and 1 person looking for traps and doors... who will have to be the furthest forward, and won't be able to look for monsters, so... good thing rogues are high dex and can disengage as a bonus action, cause they can't see a monster unless the stupid thing is standing in the middle of the hall, so they are either walking in tandem with a monster spotter, who hopefully you are kind to and don't have auto-trigger traps as they travel, or they are getting ambushed all the time. Almost makes you wonder if there was a reason the PHB indicates that looking for monsters, hazards, traps AND secret doors should be the same travel action...Physically sure, but that's like saying that Orcs and slimes are entirely different monsters. Not the point being raised. You would spot a secret door using the same exact cues as you would be traps and ambushes."Avoid being surprised" isn't the same thing as "stop the ambush" because the ambush is still 100% successful, they just have one person, maybe two who may possibly get to act on the first round. And, yeah, you hit the nail on the head. You could counter-ambush a group behind a secret door, by noticing the secret door. Which is why the chance to notice the secret door is kind of important. It is kind of the whole crux of being able to deal with the potential ambush.So, for days you argued on the position that "I move to the center of the room, looking for traps" and that it was exactly as specific as you needed. Now that is false (coincidentally, that started being false as soon as I pointed out that that description does cover a method that could find the trap, as I kept asserting) and so far the only method I've given that you have accepted is a traditional pixel-kvetching that you started this thread claiming you do not require. I also find it darkly hilarious that you can honestly still claim you would  "interpret your action declarations generously" when doing so for the initial declaration would have led to you interpretting it as moving slowly and looking at the ground, which utterly changed the entire thing! Except then looking wasn't good enough, so in your "generous" interpretation, what am I doing when looking? Or are you only generous as long as I declare I'm touching something? Because for all your supposed generosity, the only thing you have accepted without question is pixel-hunting in traditional fashion.I started this conversation thinking you weren't that type of DM. Now here we are. You need more detail, you need even more detail, you still don't know if I triggered the trap so you need EVEN MORE detail. And every time I've pushed for you to explain... well you don't understand, it isn't hard, and the player really has to decide because you don't have any ideas. But I need more detail. How exactly am I moving? Where exactly am I going? What exactly am I touching and how? If you think your conversation with me could be used as an example to help other DMs not be "killer DMs" then you seem to be sorely mistaken, because this is exactly how they operate.And I've never had the problem the OP claims either, because if I need to I ask what their intent is, and get an answer. The method doesn't matter, because there is no reason any method they would reasonably choose would prevent them from achieving their intent. I'm sure you can come up with something like screaming at their shoelaces to tie them, but most people who are reasonable and experts in their fields who I can generously assume are trying their best? They don't scream at shoelaces, they pick them up with their fingers and tie them, and while there are hundreds of knots and many are more effective than others, I don't need to know exactly which method they used. And shockingly, for the players who are comfortable with the game? Those who know I won't blow a trap up in their faces for declaring the wrong action? They tend to start giving me more than just the skill, because its fun. Not because it is a guaranteed success (sometimes it is, you don't always need to roll) but because they have fun doing it. But since they started doing things the "wrong" way, so many people on these forums want to "teach them".My aversion is for the intent to be trampled on because the player said the wrong thing. If you want to chalk that up to trauma, well, I've already stated multiple times I find that to be insulting and high handed.Shocking.</blockquote>

Verification