Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Perception vs Investigate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6943198" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>We're on the same page here, though I do specifically ask the players to state they're keeping watch for danger so there are no misunderstandings. It's a safe assumption that's what they're doing if they say nothing otherwise. I'm just extra cautious, plus it opens the door for them to describe what they want to do and how which adds to the emergent story.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it's fine and in line with the rules for the DM to say "Fail" after the player's action declaration when that action has no chance of success given the circumstances. It's fine to set a DC a given player's passive check cannot beat, too, after the action declaration and consistent with previous rulings. What I was driving at is there are some DMs who are always going to rely on the dice to determine success and failure and players in such games quickly learn to ask for the roll no matter how good or bad their ideas are in context. This is discussed in the DMG under "Role of the Dice."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I hesitate to call it "Take 10" despite its similarities. It's just a way of adjudicating for the DM to get at a result he or she can narrate. For me, it goes like this: Is the player's action declaration an automatic success or failure? If yes, narrate a result. If no, then is the player's action declaration a task that is performed repeatedly? If yes, then passive check to resolve. If no, then ability check to resolve.</p><p></p><p>As above, I think it's fine for a PC's passive check to fail against a given DC. It's just up to the DM to set fair and consistent DCs given the action declaration the player makes. There's also a rule in the DMG for when player have their characters commit 10 times the normal amount of time on a given task in exchange for automatic success. So in general I'm inclined to just grant success for that investment of time resource, but in some cases, a passive check is warranted. The context will tell.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I am just referencing an old D&D trope for effect - unlikely character A succeeding where likely character B failed, which parallels your example. Har har, everyone has a laugh. But I think ultimately it's at character B's expense, so I can do without it. I'll seek my humor elsewhere.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6943198, member: 97077"] We're on the same page here, though I do specifically ask the players to state they're keeping watch for danger so there are no misunderstandings. It's a safe assumption that's what they're doing if they say nothing otherwise. I'm just extra cautious, plus it opens the door for them to describe what they want to do and how which adds to the emergent story. I think it's fine and in line with the rules for the DM to say "Fail" after the player's action declaration when that action has no chance of success given the circumstances. It's fine to set a DC a given player's passive check cannot beat, too, after the action declaration and consistent with previous rulings. What I was driving at is there are some DMs who are always going to rely on the dice to determine success and failure and players in such games quickly learn to ask for the roll no matter how good or bad their ideas are in context. This is discussed in the DMG under "Role of the Dice." I hesitate to call it "Take 10" despite its similarities. It's just a way of adjudicating for the DM to get at a result he or she can narrate. For me, it goes like this: Is the player's action declaration an automatic success or failure? If yes, narrate a result. If no, then is the player's action declaration a task that is performed repeatedly? If yes, then passive check to resolve. If no, then ability check to resolve. As above, I think it's fine for a PC's passive check to fail against a given DC. It's just up to the DM to set fair and consistent DCs given the action declaration the player makes. There's also a rule in the DMG for when player have their characters commit 10 times the normal amount of time on a given task in exchange for automatic success. So in general I'm inclined to just grant success for that investment of time resource, but in some cases, a passive check is warranted. The context will tell. No, I am just referencing an old D&D trope for effect - unlikely character A succeeding where likely character B failed, which parallels your example. Har har, everyone has a laugh. But I think ultimately it's at character B's expense, so I can do without it. I'll seek my humor elsewhere. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Perception vs Investigate
Top