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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5702633" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yeah, but Mike and Monte didn't suggest +20 for training. keterys did (tongue in cheek of course).I don't think that Mike and Monte decided that this system is the cat's thingy.I think Monte doesn't play 4E, is stuck in 3.5, and was talking out of his butt."That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?" You know: when the PCs aren't actually looking for something, but it stands to reason that some one or more of them might just have a chance of noticing the hidden thing. Remember, for example, how in first 1st edition elves had a chance to notice secret doors just by walking by them? Or what about the rogue who always has a wary eye out for traps? You don't want these guys constantly making die rolls every 5 feet. The game will bog down quickly."Monte is a fairly smart guy. You can tell so by his writing. But, it's pretty obvious to even a noob player that 4E already has a solution for this for two skills and it just happens to be called Passive Perception and Passive Insight.When Monte has to explain this to 4E players who already know it and he uses the same terminology, but prefaces it with "what I like to call", it means that he's smart, but lacking in knowledge. He just didn't know that 4E already has that.I suspect that this whole rank thing will be forgotten or only slightly added to the game system in 5E (and of course, keterys' game mechanics parody is just plain silly). At best, they'll add the equivalent of passive xxx to a few other skills like a passive climb for athletics (maybe), the 5E equivalent of take 10, but maybe expanded a bit (for example, a take 10 climb where the DM doesn't think that the climb is especially dangerous). 5E might just formalized this a bit more (hopefully, I hope they don't go all rank thingy in 5E).Opps. Ignore this. I had only read Monte's perception article, not Mike's class warfare. Mike is actually thinking of this. Good thing he got negative feedback from some of the other designers. I still think that passive xxx works just as good without adding yet another layer and I see some other issues with the Journeyman approach. The game can work with the DM deciding "auto-work" or "auto-fail" without having a bunch of extra skill rules on it. It is a bit annoying to see game elements from other games creeping into D&D  in the almighty attempt to simplify. If they want to simplify something, they should tackle the plethora of short term conditions that are constantly being added and subtracted during combat. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification