Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rya.Reisender" data-source="post: 6752810" data-attributes="member: 6801585">Wait, you start this example already with the traps and the advancing monster patrols noticed and I assume that's from their passive perception, so where does that consume an action? If the monster patrol spotted them already you would already be in combat mode, then of course actions do matter. If a player then says he wants to disarm or circumvent the trap, then of course that would require a turn. But that's completely unrelated to passive checks.Don't really see an issue with that either. If a PC checks for something and rolls low peception, then you can just tell him he doesn't find anything. That he is then hesitant is okay. If you check for something and the outcome is that you are unsure, then acting unsure makes sense.By the way, what exactly are the issues with active checks you are referring to? You mean the ones we are discussing right now, that they take an action and give PCs meta information? Because I see neither as issue... can you elaborate?As I told you before. If the PCs have enough passive perception don't just tell them &quot;There's a trap&quot;, instead describe aspects of the trap that they notice, let them conclude there is a trap themselves. Then it's much less boring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rya.Reisender, post: 6752810, member: 6801585"] Wait, you start this example already with the traps and the advancing monster patrols noticed and I assume that's from their passive perception, so where does that consume an action? If the monster patrol spotted them already you would already be in combat mode, then of course actions do matter. If a player then says he wants to disarm or circumvent the trap, then of course that would require a turn. But that's completely unrelated to passive checks. Don't really see an issue with that either. If a PC checks for something and rolls low peception, then you can just tell him he doesn't find anything. That he is then hesitant is okay. If you check for something and the outcome is that you are unsure, then acting unsure makes sense. By the way, what exactly are the issues with active checks you are referring to? You mean the ones we are discussing right now, that they take an action and give PCs meta information? Because I see neither as issue... can you elaborate? As I told you before. If the PCs have enough passive perception don't just tell them "There's a trap", instead describe aspects of the trap that they notice, let them conclude there is a trap themselves. Then it's much less boring. [/QUOTE]

Verification