Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6834627" data-attributes="member: 6690511">I only use passive Perception, and pretty much only as a DC for Stealth checks.I agree with your reasoning, but your conclusion doesn't work for me. I guess you like mental math more than I do (which is saying a lot, so well done), but I just don't see the need to involve numbers at all. You want to smash a thing? Congratulations, you smash the thing. If there's no consequence for failure, why involve a check at all? And if there is a consequence for failure, why not roll? And if you're going to arbitrarily determine the result anyway, why make yourself do math?This just doesn't make sense to me. By this system, any character with a passive knowledge skill of X or higher automatically knows all information of DC X or lower (or whatever). Like, everyone with a +5 intelligence bonus automatically knows every single basic fact there is to know, like they've memorized the dictionary or something. To me, this is a situation where it makes sense to roll, because it's uncertain if this particular character knows this particular piece of information.Of course, if I as the DM wanted the player to automatically know the information, because I felt it's something the character should know, I'd just tell them the information. No checks necessary.I get a similar effect by letting one player roll a singular check (the one with the highest bonus), with advantage if someone is helping, or a group check (if they're all helping). If they fail, that's it. Question answered, scene over. If the barbarian can't climb up the cliff, none of you can. The goblin won't tell you any more, and no amount of torture is going to make him talk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 6834627, member: 6690511"] I only use passive Perception, and pretty much only as a DC for Stealth checks. I agree with your reasoning, but your conclusion doesn't work for me. I guess you like mental math more than I do (which is saying a lot, so well done), but I just don't see the need to involve numbers at all. You want to smash a thing? Congratulations, you smash the thing. If there's no consequence for failure, why involve a check at all? And if there [I]is[/I] a consequence for failure, why not roll? And if you're going to arbitrarily determine the result anyway, why make yourself do math? This just doesn't make sense to me. By this system, any character with a passive knowledge skill of X or higher automatically knows all information of DC X or lower (or whatever). Like, everyone with a +5 intelligence bonus automatically knows every single basic fact there is to know, like they've memorized the dictionary or something. To me, this is a situation where it makes sense to roll, because it's uncertain if this particular character knows this particular piece of information. Of course, if I as the DM wanted the player to automatically know the information, because I felt it's something the character should know, I'd just tell them the information. No checks necessary. I get a similar effect by letting one player roll a singular check (the one with the highest bonus), with advantage if someone is helping, or a group check (if they're [I]all[/I] helping). If they fail, that's it. Question answered, scene over. If the barbarian can't climb up the cliff, none of you can. The goblin won't tell you any more, and no amount of torture is going to make him talk. [/QUOTE]

Verification