Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7038053" data-attributes="member: 1465">We've used it many times. You sneak into an area, you fail to stay stealthy, the locals discover you are here and then prepare a surprise for you later: setup an ambush, arm themselves fully and wait for you, activate a trap, flee with or hide the mcguffin...Of course, you can also let them roll at the time of the effects if you like. Pretty much what you just said. Passive checks are automatic successes when they are not automatic failures. In the first case, a passive check is actually better than an active check, so a smart player who guesses correctly when to use a skill, is punished by now having a chance of failure in place of the automatic success. We had tons of discussions on these forums about the pros and cons. They were just unfinished drafts with only a few possible actions defined, but the structure was in place. Essentially, turn-based meant that you'd use them to describe extended amounts of time broken down into smaller parts (1 minutes for dungeon exploration, 1 hour for wilderness exploration), and during each part every PC chose one action such as guarding vs threats, gathering food, avoiding getting lost, or moving stealthily. One check covers the whole turn. They could have generalized the idea to allow everything you could do while exploring, including especially trapfinding, which is the traditional pain in the Iuz if a paranoid player starts to check every spot for traps after the DM punished him for not checking the only one place where there really was a trap.I thought it was a great idea that really helped against this neverending problems of passive vs active, retried vs one-time, distributed vs concentrated...</blockquote>

Verification