Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5096061" data-attributes="member: 2011">I have no problem with the players finding out reasonable game mechanics information as they progress through an encounter. I'm merely talking about what the DM describes when the encounter starts.A player gets a 22 total to hit against AC and misses, the player knows that the AC of the foe is 23 or higher. I have zip problem with this level of gradual and progressive player information gain.You find this reasonable?I would never tell a player that the Rod of Reaving had no effect on a minion. For that matter, I would never tell a player that the Rod of Reaving had a 1 hit point effect on any other monster.I would just mark a hit point of damage on my DM sheet for either creature and move on.A single hit point??? Are you kidding?You find it reasonable that a Rod of Reaving should be a Minion Divining Rod? WotC changed the Rod so that it was no longer a Minion Killing Rod. I hardly think they did that to change the Rod into a Minion Divining Rod. That's an accidental side effect of the lousy minion rules and the fact that they had to nerf the Rod. It's not intentional.Sorry, but if a player brought such metagaming nonsense to my gaming table, I'd tell him where the door is.Course, I doubt I would ever hand out a Rod of Reaving to begin with (it's a pretty bland item), so it would never be an issue at my table.There are always going to be unintentional side effects with regard to certain items and player knowledge. That doesn't mean that the DM has to hand out game mechanics information because certain rules (like the minion rules) are inferior.</blockquote>

Verification