Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5838558" data-attributes="member: 6689976">I'm kind of stuck on the emphasis on auto-successes we've been hearing about from playtests/seminars/etc. There was a playtest report somewhere that said, in effect, "Our rogue's Sneak skill was higher than the kobolds' Perceptions, so he snuck around without making a single roll!"Does this worry anyone else? I already have to deal with Passive Perception and Insight in 4e, which I think gives players (my players, at least) a bit of a sense of entitlement that they deserve to find all hidden things and detect all lies. (That's an exaggeration, of course, but they often just say to me, "Passive 17!" and expect me to give up information.)Having all skills work "passively" seems self-defeating. It seems such a system could go in one of two ways in-game. Either I as the DM set the difficulty below the PC's skill rank and they auto-succeed, so there was no point in having a skill involved at all-- or I set it above and they have to roll, so there was no point in having an auto-success rule. I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be no auto/passive mechanism-- I know how dull it can be to roll Perception every five feet down a hallway checking for traps. But it's equally dull to just tell the player where all the traps are. Why even bother putting traps in, then?Thoughts? Am I missing something about how this system would/should work?</blockquote>