Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2822996" data-attributes="member: 10201">While i would include that in the definition of "minor cheating" i was more thinking of things like 'you actually roll a 10, which would hit, but say it was a 6, which misses, in a situation where the opponent is weak enough that there is no danger of it doing serious (or any) harm to another character due to your flubbed attack'. I'm not thinking of situations where there is no change, but situations where the change is so minor as to be 'inconsequential', that change is not to the cheater's benefit, and that change is not detectable externally (IOW, provided no one else actually saw the die roll, the result doesn't seem anomolous). So, it's not noticable not because it has zero impact, but because the impact is very small and non-anomolous.Here's a completely bizarre and unrealistic hypothetical example: what if a player in your group had a d20 that had no 15, 16, or 17, instead replacing them with 4, 7, and 11 (thus having two of each of those numbers). Would you consider it cheating if she used that die all the time (irrespective of the situation)? If you never looked at the die, do you think you'd ever even be aware of the change?See, i think that exceeds the threshhold of "minor"--that's too big of a violation of the rules to be "minor" in my book. Which is probably part of the disagreement.</blockquote>