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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7245577" data-attributes="member: 6857506">So, first, despite the fact that you have neglected to finish them with '?', these appear to be rhetorical questions.  I recommend trying to avoid rhetorical questions in these discussions because a) they generally carry the smell of sarcasm with them (even if not intended), which is not helpful; and b) they can sometimes obscure the point you are trying to make because they do not state the point directly.In this case, for instance, I would infer from your questions that you would not approve of and would not engage in the behaviors that you were questioning.  And it appears that you think that somehow disputes my point.  But in fact, that was very much part of my point. So I end up a little confused about what point you were trying to make with your questions.To restate my point - even though you and I know the PCs' weak saves, we don't (unless we are running a very knowledgeable opponent) have NPC opponents take advantage of that knowledge.  Given that, I don't understand why you insist that DMs cannot be trusted to compartmentalize their knowledge of which spells PC are casting as well.Ok, 'minor' might be the wrong word.  What I meant was knowing what spell the PC is casting is (depending on circumstances, of course) not necessarily any more of an advantage than any of the other myriad things that the DM knows that the NPC opponents don't.I guess we just disagree about this judgement as a generality.  Other knowledge, if used to run an opponent NPC, can be just as detrimental to the PCs as knowing which spells they are casting.  To me, they seem very similar.I think this is a good point - if you're going to roll, then you should roll for all.  And using passive may be a good option, too.</blockquote>

Verification