Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7125062" data-attributes="member: 7006">I've used the &quot;passive as minimum&quot; all along in my campaigns (before even Jeremy clarified it), and indeed have a PC with the Observant feat.&nbsp; Thus they have a passive perception and a passive investigation in the high teens (his WIS is actually only average).&nbsp; But it really hasn't been a problem, as I don't even really &quot;challenge&quot; him using the game mechanics anymore or bother looking at DC numbers and the like.&nbsp; If he's in an area where there's stuff to see, I just tell him stuff he notices &quot;for free&quot;.&nbsp; I treat him having a story-based narrative ability, rather than a bonus to the game mechanics.D&amp;D traditionally (and indeed with a lot of 5E) attributes mechanical numbers to everything-- everything is mechanics-based.&nbsp; Which is why I found it very refreshing when I first saw Backgrounds and noticed that their Background Features did not in fact use dice rolls or give you bonuses to dice rolls-- instead you just got an ability you got to use automatically &quot;for free&quot; that just worked.&nbsp; If you're an Acolyte for example, you could just go to a temple of your god to receive services and have a place to stay free of charge-- no negotiations or bartering necessary, no need to run quests for them or whatever.&nbsp; It was just a narrative ability you received that had nothing to do with game mechanics.These kinds of abilities and features are in short supply in D&amp;D-- almost everything else is an allowed dice roll, or a modifier to a dice roll, or a way to adjudicate a dice roll.&nbsp; A feature gives you a bonus to a check, or gives you advantage on a check, or allows you to make a check to begin with, etc. etc.&nbsp; But to have a feature that just allows you to do something no roll necessary is something that most narrative storytelling games give out like candy, but which D&amp;D holds back tightly.&nbsp; And I find that I actually prefer having the former available, because that when a character really feels like they are special.&nbsp; So I treat Feats (especially the non-combat ones) in many ways like background features-- that you just can do stuff successfully without needing to roll.&nbsp; If you are Observant, you just notice almost everything around you that isn't magically inhibited.&nbsp; If you are an Actor, you don't receive a bonus to performance or deception checks and the like, you can just preternaturally ACT in whatever manner you choose that fools everybody.&nbsp; If you're an Athlete, there's absolutely no chance of any &quot;fails&quot; on climbing walls, balancing across rooftops, sprinting after people and the like-- you just are a freak of nature and can do all that stuff.And it's my job as the DM to take all this cool stuff the PCs can do &quot;for free&quot; and make it narratively interesting.Now I know there will be some other DMs who will ask how I can challenge the PCs if they can just &quot;do stuff&quot; with no chance of failure... but that's the trick, isn't it?&nbsp; But the way I look at it, I would rather let them &quot;be awesome&quot; at a one particular thing and put the onus on my to come up with other ways to challenge them, then to keep forcing unnecessary dice rolls just to see if they roll a '1' and then &quot;Ooh!&nbsp; A fail!&nbsp; You trip over your feet and fall down!&quot;&nbsp; Instead, I just give it to them.&nbsp; It's more fun for them, and saves me the time having to decide on DCs, making them roll checks and then coming up with lame results if/when they roll a '1'.Narrative auto-success I find more enjoyable than mechanical failure.&nbsp; Especially when a player has spent a feat slot to get it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7125062, member: 7006"] I've used the "passive as minimum" all along in my campaigns (before even Jeremy clarified it), and indeed have a PC with the Observant feat. Thus they have a passive perception and a passive investigation in the high teens (his WIS is actually only average). But it really hasn't been a problem, as I don't even really "challenge" him using the game mechanics anymore or bother looking at DC numbers and the like. If he's in an area where there's stuff to see, I just tell him stuff he notices "for free". I treat him having a story-based narrative ability, rather than a bonus to the game mechanics. D&D traditionally (and indeed with a lot of 5E) attributes mechanical numbers to everything-- everything is mechanics-based. Which is why I found it very refreshing when I first saw Backgrounds and noticed that their Background Features did not in fact use dice rolls or give you bonuses to dice rolls-- instead you just got an ability you got to use automatically "for free" that just worked. If you're an Acolyte for example, you could just go to a temple of your god to receive services and have a place to stay free of charge-- no negotiations or bartering necessary, no need to run quests for them or whatever. It was just a [I]narrative[/I] ability you received that had nothing to do with game mechanics. These kinds of abilities and features are in short supply in D&D-- almost everything else is an allowed dice roll, or a modifier to a dice roll, or a way to adjudicate a dice roll. A feature gives you a bonus to a check, or gives you advantage on a check, or allows you to make a check to begin with, etc. etc. But to have a feature that just allows you to do something [I]no roll necessary[/I] is something that most narrative storytelling games give out like candy, but which D&D holds back tightly. And I find that I actually prefer having the former available, because that when a character really feels like they are special. So I treat Feats (especially the non-combat ones) in many ways like background features-- that you just can do stuff successfully [I]without [/I]needing to roll. If you are Observant, you just notice almost everything around you that isn't magically inhibited. If you are an Actor, you don't receive a bonus to performance or deception checks and the like, you can just preternaturally ACT in whatever manner you choose that fools everybody. If you're an Athlete, there's absolutely no chance of any "fails" on climbing walls, balancing across rooftops, sprinting after people and the like-- you just are a freak of nature and can do all that stuff. And it's my job as the DM to take all this cool stuff the PCs can do "for free" and make it narratively interesting. Now I know there will be some other DMs who will ask how I can challenge the PCs if they can just "do stuff" with no chance of failure... but that's the trick, isn't it? But the way I look at it, I would rather let them "be awesome" at a one particular thing and put the onus on my to come up with other ways to challenge them, then to keep forcing unnecessary dice rolls just to see if they roll a '1' and then "Ooh! A fail! You trip over your feet and fall down!" Instead, I just give it to them. It's more fun for them, and saves me the time having to decide on DCs, making them roll checks and then coming up with lame results if/when they roll a '1'. Narrative auto-success I find more enjoyable than mechanical failure. Especially when a player has spent a feat slot to get it. [/QUOTE]

Verification