Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8701356" data-attributes="member: 7006">Yep, I've always considered PP to be a Reliable talent, and I don't have a problem with that.  Some people get bothered that it "steps on the Rogue's toes"... but the Rogue has the entire rest of the skill list to apply it to as well, so everyone having a Reliable perception is fine by me.As far as your second point... this is one of those times where trying to make the rules "realistic" butts up against the need or point of having the rule in the first place in my view.  If the only time most DMs ever use a passive roll is for Perception... you're only ever going to need one or the other you created-- "standard" or "passive".  Perception won't ever be both (at least in the way I'm reading your definitions). So you've made two levels unnecessarily where only one will do.Now if you just want to lower all PPs by 5 just because you think PP as it currently stands is "too good" for a character's standard all-around and unthinking perceptiveness... I can understand that.  But the question you have to then ask yourself is whether you ever have anything hidden wherein having a PP down in the 5 to 8s would actually have a chance to work?  Because if that's such a rare occurrence, then even bothering with PP at all is kind of a waste.  But if you do things like Hiding In Combat and you find that your monsters are being noticed too often due to the PC's passive perceptions and you want to give the monsters more of a fighting chance to succeed in hiding in combat (even if their DEX (Stealth) checks are down in the 8s, 9s, or 10s)... then sure, lowering everyone's PP would be a reasonable solution.  Those Stealth checks to hide would work much more often.</blockquote>

Verification