Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 5987188" data-attributes="member: 63508">My point is that there are many things that a player and DM could disagree on. It would be difficult to discuss them all unless:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They spend the time discussing every common situation there is no rule for.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Or one gives the other the FULL arbitration power and deals with the consequences</li> </ol>But when there is a rule or guideline somewhere as a starting point, then the player and DM have a starting line of expectation to go from.For example. 3.5E has rules for Feints. It is a Bluff vs Sense Motive check as a standard action that removes Dex bonus to action.The players know that.The DMs knows that.So if the no Bluff having PC spams feints, the player and DM expect the PC to fail a lot. And if the High Bluff having PC spams feints, the player and DM expect the PC to succeed a lot. And the player knows he cannot feint as a move action without a feat or DM adjudication. So if the player wishes to feint and stab witot Improved Fient, the player must ask permission and should expect to loss accuracy or damage or AC.But without feinting rules, the DM would have to give out feinting rules ahead of time or there would be no expectations. All would be in the dark. The player would not know what would happen if you feint, the cost nor effect. The DM would not know ow his or her feinting rules would affect the game. No one would know what skill or ability score is used ahead of time. Hundreds or variables and possible frowns. Chaos and madness of the dark unknown.But of course everything wont get a rule or guideline. But having them for  the most common of occurrences frees up game time, lowers animosity, and keeps future headaches to a minimum.Truth is funny like that.</blockquote>

Verification