Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7161223" data-attributes="member: 996">Must have been more than 20 yrs, those exploits were gone by the end of the 80s...&nbsp;Another way of saying about the same thing (if I followed that correctly), is that a passive check is only passive in the sense that it's not called for in response to an action declaration for that character.&nbsp; As an aside, I quite like the passive mechanic and think contested checks should generally be avoided as 'too swingy' (as we tend to say on the boards, even if it's not statistically proper), a check, if the DM calls for one at all, should always be a roll vs a DC, a passive score is just a convenient formula for the DM to use in setting certain DCs.&nbsp; Or, I suppose, I'm saying &quot;DCs shouldn't be determined randomly by a d20 roll.&quot;As it applies to perception, making checks vs passive perception behind the screen is a fine way to determine what's found by the PCs, without any TT equivalent of 'pixel bitching' being required. Even more convenient:&nbsp; narrating that they find whatever it is you mean for them to find without bothering with either.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;OK, so that's another thing about passives.&nbsp; They should always be compared to a check, not a DC.&nbsp; Passive vs Passive is every bit as bad as a contested check for the opposite reason (no 'swing' at all).If you're using the PC's passives, you should be making checks - stealth checks of enemies sneaking up on them, kolbold-trapmaking-tools checks to see how well-camouflaged that tripwire is under the current conditions, etc...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7161223, member: 996"] Must have been more than 20 yrs, those exploits were gone by the end of the 80s... Another way of saying about the same thing (if I followed that correctly), is that a passive check is only passive in the sense that it's not called for in response to an [i]action[/i] declaration for that character. As an aside, I quite like the passive mechanic and think contested checks should generally be avoided as 'too swingy' (as we tend to say on the boards, even if it's not statistically proper), a check, if the DM calls for one at all, should always be a roll vs a DC, a passive score is just a convenient formula for the DM to use in setting certain DCs. Or, I suppose, I'm saying "DCs shouldn't be determined randomly by a d20 roll." As it applies to perception, making checks vs passive perception behind the screen is a fine way to determine what's found by the PCs, without any TT equivalent of 'pixel bitching' being required. [i]Even more convenient: narrating that they find whatever it is you mean for them to find without bothering with either.[/i] ;) OK, so that's another thing about passives. They should always be compared to a check, not a DC. Passive vs Passive is every bit as bad as a contested check for the opposite reason (no 'swing' at all). If you're using the PC's passives, you should be making checks - stealth checks of enemies sneaking up on them, kolbold-trapmaking-tools checks to see how well-camouflaged that tripwire is under the current conditions, etc... [/QUOTE]

Verification