Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7161396" data-attributes="member: 996">The rules can say what they want.  <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   Certainly, if he's calling for a check, he sets the DC (if he hasn't already, or if he's not just abdicating that responsibility in favor of using an adventure as written).  If you're comparing a passive score to a DC, and deciding the DC right then, you're just back to deciding success vs failure, though.  I see the line you're painting, of course, I just don't see the value of the distinction.  But, then, I don't see the value of comparing DCs instead of making an actual check vs a DC, in fact, I see it as a negative.  :shrug: I can accept that's what you're aiming for.  But, I also know from sad experience back in the day that players react to success & failure, especially if they perceive it as a 'gotchya' because they failed to state just the right action or just the right way.  That leads to declaring tons of 'reasonably specific' actions, which is what I'm equating to video-game pixel bitching.  Can't search for a secret door and a trap at the same time?  Always search for each.  Get burned because there was a hidden monster that you didn't find because you were busy looking for secret doors & traps, look for all three, every time.  Gets annoying. Passives avoid that.  When the players aren't driving themselves, and you, crazy with elaborate precautions and repeating phrasings that have granted them alertness in the past, you can just roll a check behind the screen, against a passive score, and off you go.  Ramps down the paranoia and obsessive attention to detail.  It was a benefit I noticed even back in 3.0, being able to get away from mapping every square inch and doing 'door drills' and whatnot.  ('New School' they called that in another thread...)  ;P Nod.  I find the standard resolution satisfying, as a DM, I can move things along, set things up, or call for checks when it's appropriate.   My issue is with what passes for a check.  d20 vs DC gives a reasonable, if sadly flat distribution.  d20 vs d20 is too swingy; DC vs DC has no swing at all.I see no issue with resolving uncertainty with an actual d20 vs DC check:  if in response to a player action, I set a DC, if a PC is the object, 'passives' act as a DC, and I can decide on the bonus to apply.  I do see (or rather, have long since developed an aversion to, having seen it so much back in the day), an issue with players declaring elaborate plans & precautions, explicitly describing every step of everything they do, and examining every square inch of an environment.  It's just tedious. ....Oh, another tangent about rolls.  Group checks.  Like passives, they've been useful in heading off some old issues.  One thing I never cared for after 3.0 introduced knowledge checks was the fail-and-pile-on phenomenon.  One character asks a question, the DM calls for a knowledge check, the player craps out, then everyone else, whether they're particularly good at the skill or not jumps in and rolls, typically someone, not always someone who makes sense, succeeds.  BA makes this a particularly seductive, and particularly obnoxious, as it's that much more likely to work, and to have an out-of-character success.   Group checks suggested an alternative.  When everyone piles onto a knowledge check, it becomes a group check, if more than half fail, they can't sort the right answers some may have come up with from the general confusion, and no useful information is gained.  Of course, 5e also gives the easy answer of just narrating success/failure.  <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification