Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6605242" data-attributes="member: 97077">And yet he himself says that his tweets and the like are simply how he rules at his table and that other DMs may rule differently. I rule differently for reasons already stated. Are you suggesting my ruling is wrong because it is not the same as Mike Mearls' ruling?The way I rule it, it's both a trade-off in the character build in a choice during play, instead of just one. Page 65 is very much about trade-offs. Either you're in a position to notice a hidden threat or you're not. You're either keeping an eye out for hidden threats or doing something sufficiently distracting that you're not.Incorrect. I have stated that what the character is doing must be at least as distracting as foraging, tracking, map-making, and the like as per page 65 of the Basic Rules.That's your ruling. It may not be mine. Or it might be, depending on the specific circumstances.I disagree. One can travel for a minute or an hour according to the rules for pace. Thus, I think it's reasonable to use those rules as a basis for ruling on passive Perception as a trade-off.I've already solved the problem using existing rules as a basis for my rulings. I don't need an official solution. But if you need one, I hope you get one.I see no reason to treat travel as a subsystem and extending its rules to handle passive Perception in all situations solves some of the issues with passive Perception that a lot of people are having. And with regard to this ruling, it's good to get player buy-in on the notion prior to play so as to avoid the conversation you claim you would have with your DM while everyone else is trying to play the game. I've had no issue with this during Session Zero because most players I've played with agree that passive Perception as an "always-on radar" isn't very interesting and in some cases ruins aspects of play.</blockquote>

Verification