User talk:Reese: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Wouldn't allowing passive perception to see invisibility, even at a very high DC, just obviate the need for additional senses? Wouldn't it effectively make enhanced senses, like blindsense, obsolete, once you raise it high enough? -reese | Wouldn't allowing passive perception to see invisibility, even at a very high DC, just obviate the need for additional senses? Wouldn't it effectively make enhanced senses, like blindsense, obsolete, once you raise it high enough? -reese | ||
Isn't a high enough perception a sense of it's own? I disagree that it would do away withe the need for other senses. My suggestion would not be likely to apply to near CR encounters. - dgw | |||
Regarding ambushes, I assume you read the [[Talk:Epic_Path#surprise_rounds|notes I threw in]] to try to make surprise rounds something that are possible, but fair, for both the GM and the players. Given that there's already a substantial chance for failure (45% chance for the ambush to be spottable with passive perception), I don't think it would be a good idea to let players (or worse, monsters) just see through it anyway, if they have a high enough perception. Doing so puts us right back where we are now, which is that the only way a GM can get surprise is by basically cheating (not allowing perception checks). -reese | Regarding ambushes, I assume you read the [[Talk:Epic_Path#surprise_rounds|notes I threw in]] to try to make surprise rounds something that are possible, but fair, for both the GM and the players. Given that there's already a substantial chance for failure (45% chance for the ambush to be spottable with passive perception), I don't think it would be a good idea to let players (or worse, monsters) just see through it anyway, if they have a high enough perception. Doing so puts us right back where we are now, which is that the only way a GM can get surprise is by basically cheating (not allowing perception checks). -reese | ||
Literature and movies are rife with examples of characters that could detect ambushes/invisibility due to their heightened Perception. - dgw |
Revision as of 10:52, 30 May 2017
placeholder
Perception - Passive. I would argue that that at a certain point, Passive perception should be able to see through things like Invisibility or Ambushes, etc. Either applying a substantial negative modifier, or as an Epic level ability. -dgw
Wouldn't allowing passive perception to see invisibility, even at a very high DC, just obviate the need for additional senses? Wouldn't it effectively make enhanced senses, like blindsense, obsolete, once you raise it high enough? -reese
Isn't a high enough perception a sense of it's own? I disagree that it would do away withe the need for other senses. My suggestion would not be likely to apply to near CR encounters. - dgw
Regarding ambushes, I assume you read the notes I threw in to try to make surprise rounds something that are possible, but fair, for both the GM and the players. Given that there's already a substantial chance for failure (45% chance for the ambush to be spottable with passive perception), I don't think it would be a good idea to let players (or worse, monsters) just see through it anyway, if they have a high enough perception. Doing so puts us right back where we are now, which is that the only way a GM can get surprise is by basically cheating (not allowing perception checks). -reese
Literature and movies are rife with examples of characters that could detect ambushes/invisibility due to their heightened Perception. - dgw