NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6229712" data-attributes="member: 17106">This bears repeating. Do whatever you want at home, but D&D, the game itself, has players who play their characters and a DM who controls evertyhing.These kind of go hand in hand to me. One obvious reason that I've used is if the DM gives the PC some secret bloodline or emergent magical ability the player didn't know he had. This is both a revision of background and potentially a new set of abilities that pops up on the character sheet, and the player may have no say in any of it. If the DM wants the player to go on a voyage of self-discovery, it's hard to do that with things the player already knows. If one were to play the Baldur's Gate games as an rpg campaign, wherein the protagonist discovers that he is a demigod, this is exactly what would happen.Another simpler reason might be if the PC is unbalanced and the DM decides to "fix" it by simply changing something. Not ideal, but certainly something that can happen, and that I've seen talked about in at least one of the DMGs.Could a DM simply tell the player "move five skill ranks from Climb to Knowledge (Arcana)" simply because he feels like it? Yes, but no one is saying that every exercise of discretion is equally wise.I actually think there are a fair number of examples where this happens. For one, the scenario where a DM says to a player that certain options are inaccessible, either banned or things that you need training to do. But even giving specific instructions is entirely reasonable.For example, in a maritime game, the DM might require that all the PCs be sailors and direct them to spend a certain number of ranks of Prof (Sailor) or Swim. In an urban game, the DM might tell everyone to take Knowledge (Local). Simply for thematic reasons, a DM might direct a player to play a particular race or class. These kinds of things come up all the time. Any time you tell the players anything other than "build whatever you want withing the books", you're telling them how to spend their resources to some extent.And what is a pregen, if not the DM directing how the entire character is built?The idea that players control their character's development is already a reach outside of playing the character. After all, the character doesn't control what race he is, and probably has very little control of what his ability scores are. Even his learned abilities are a mix of choices he made and external factors.After all that, I find that giving some specific instructions to players on how to build their characters often helps create a more cohesive campaign. I do it all the time.Again, there is a distinction between what can be done and what is wise to do.However, turn it around and say a player rolls a 1 on a save against a death effect. Is the DM entitled to dictate that the character survives? Sure. People do that all the time.But even taking the orc example. What if the orc is a major NPC and the DM wants him to survive. Maybe he was expecting a brief battle first, but seeing the die result, the DM suddenly says that the orc lays down his arms and gives the players a chance to talk, effectively stepping outside the mechanics. Deus ex machina? Sure. But it is allowable. Say instead that the players have without their knowledge been transported to a demiplane where attacks are impossible (which does exist in a book somewhere IIRC). This roll of 20, nothing happens scenario might be how that is revealed.Just saying that the attack does nothing without any reason is probably not a wise exercise of discretion, nor is doing anything without a good reason, but there are possible reasons for doing this.Yeah.</blockquote>

Verification