Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5753770" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, this is an extreme case.&nbsp; It isn't a small thing of knowing just some stats of a monster and having to ignore that.&nbsp; It sounds like a more broad case of knowing most of the adventure, which won't be a concern at most tables.&nbsp; It puts him in a sticky place - a smart character can figure out some stuff, but won't know everything.&nbsp; He'd have to pick and choose use some of that knowledge, but not all.&nbsp; If he plays dumb, he doesn't have to find the balance line.And, in terms of playtest, having him come up with anything isn't really a fair test of the adventure. He can be there to fill out the tactical situations, but shouldn't be part of the party's reasoning process.&nbsp; So, he can play a character with a high intelligence/wisdom who refuses to engage his brain in a life-or-death situation, but that's not very plausible, is it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5753770, member: 177"] Well, this is an extreme case. It isn't a small thing of knowing just some stats of a monster and having to ignore that. It sounds like a more broad case of knowing most of the adventure, which won't be a concern at most tables. It puts him in a sticky place - a smart character can figure out some stuff, but won't know everything. He'd have to pick and choose use some of that knowledge, but not all. If he plays dumb, he doesn't have to find the balance line. And, in terms of playtest, having him come up with anything isn't really a fair test of the adventure. He can be there to fill out the tactical situations, but shouldn't be part of the party's reasoning process. So, he can play a character with a high intelligence/wisdom who refuses to engage his brain in a life-or-death situation, but that's not very plausible, is it? [/QUOTE]

Verification