Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9242433" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Yep, this is definitely a thing that can happen with passive perception, especially when you treat it as the floor for perception checks. Personally, I don't really have a problem with setting a DC knowing that a PC can't fail to meet it, but I can easily see why this might bother a DM. One of the advantages of using passive perception only as the PHB recommends: to represent the net result of an action performed repeatedly or continuously over a period of time. Basically, ignore the name &quot;passive perception,&quot; and instead treat these as a special type of check used when a player declares an ongoing action.Well, I would argue that if the net isn't interesting if you know two characters will see it, then it isn't interesting at all. In which case, I would say it shouldn't be there at all. But there are other schools of thought with regards to traps and other hidden elements. For some DMs, &quot;because it would make sense for a net to be there&quot; is reason enough for it to be there, regardless of if its discovery or lack of discovery is interesting. But personally, my recommendation would be to change the way you think about these traps and hidden elements. The interesting part shouldn't be the question of whether or not the PCs find it, but what they will do about it when they do find it.No point. If you're going to raise the DCs to account for the players' bonuses, it's just a treadmill, which I'm not a fan of. I'd definitely advocate for just following the &quot;10 = easy, 15 = medium, 20 = hard&quot; guideline and not taking the PCs' bonuses into consideration at all.I'm not sure I fully understand what you're describing here, but in principle, I feel like semi-randomized DCs is a perfectly reasonable concept. Maybe instead of the standard DC scale, easy is 1d6+7, medium is 1d6+12, and hard is 1d6+17, or something like that. I kinda like that, actually.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9242433, member: 6779196"] Yep, this is definitely a thing that can happen with passive perception, especially when you treat it as the floor for perception checks. Personally, I don't really have a problem with setting a DC knowing that a PC can't fail to meet it, but I can easily see why this might bother a DM. One of the advantages of using passive perception only as the PHB recommends: to represent the net result of an action performed repeatedly or continuously over a period of time. Basically, ignore the name "[I]passive[/I] perception," and instead treat these as a special type of check used when a player declares an ongoing action. Well, I would argue that if the net isn't interesting if you know two characters will see it, then it isn't interesting at all. In which case, I would say it [I]shouldn't[/I] be there at all. But there are other schools of thought with regards to traps and other hidden elements. For some DMs, "because it would make sense for a net to be there" is reason enough for it to be there, regardless of if its discovery or lack of discovery is interesting. But personally, my recommendation would be to change the way you think about these traps and hidden elements. The interesting part shouldn't be the question of whether or not the PCs find it, but what they will do about it when they do find it. No point. If you're going to raise the DCs to account for the players' bonuses, it's just a treadmill, which I'm not a fan of. I'd definitely advocate for just following the "10 = easy, 15 = medium, 20 = hard" guideline and not taking the PCs' bonuses into consideration at all. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're describing here, but in principle, I feel like semi-randomized DCs is a perfectly reasonable concept. Maybe instead of the standard DC scale, easy is 1d6+7, medium is 1d6+12, and hard is 1d6+17, or something like that. I kinda like that, actually. [/QUOTE]

Verification