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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7579577" data-attributes="member: 23751">I suppose it would only be done for monsters with strengths or weaknesses, which is a lot of them.  I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't be okay with trolls and bring in the uncle, but would be golems and not bring in some "reason" to know about golems.  I don't like this playstyle and my players don't like this playstyle.  Those are pretty good reasons I think.There are pros and cons to allowing them to create on the fly as well.  It all depends on which way is best for you, and your way isn't best for me and my game.The PC is not aware of hit points and knows he can die to a single hit, whether 1st level or 20th level.  And if by "Well, this is your very specific take on  HP," you mean RAW, then yes it is."Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."The first part about describing hit point loss in different ways simply means that I might describe a "hit" that leaves no mark due to the fighter still being over 50% as a close miss, while you might describe it as a ringing blow to the helm that doesn't penetrate.  The context of the rest of the paragraph makes that clear with how it directs hit points to be used.I disagree as well, which is probably why I've said over and over again that in MY GAME it's cheating.Fair enough.  "Better" in the way I was using it was in the context of the money advantage you mentioned, but I can see where that would not be clear and could be read as better overall.  Roleplaying wise, a noble can be as fun to play as an urchin, merchant, soldier or whatever, so there would be no "better" in that regard.It is an unfair advantage.  The creature's difficulty is based on those strengths and weaknesses being an actual challenge.  If the players are using their knowledge such that they get to automatically know about the monsters' strengths and weaknesses, those monsters become weaker as challenges and I would have to cut down the XP value of them to compensate.I have no problem if they know about it through reasonable in game means, though, such as pre-written backgrounds and skills, because those are limited and they will sometimes get the info they need, sometimes fail to get it, and sometimes partially get it.  The game accounts for that sort of inconsistent knowledge via skills and such, so that would preserve the challenge value of monsters in general.So no, it's not more of an unfair disadvantage to have the player write a background in advance.  The purpose of backgrounds is informational about the PC, not to gain mechanical advantages during game play.  Sure, there will be the occasional mechanical advantage such as information about some sort of monster or other, but by and large the background is just fluff.  Even when I bring in a portion of it, making that aspect of the background matter and being better for play, it will generally be fluff and carry no mechanical value at all.  For example, a player in my game had his PC befriend a hermit.  I might one day have that hermit one day track his PC down and ask him to help with some bandits that have taken up residence near the hermit's remote location, making it difficult for him to live.</blockquote>

Verification