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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8593291" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't fudge (fudging is cheating), but my other two votes went to "I prefer other desserts" (both because that is true IRL and because I use other methods to solve the problems people claim can only be solved with fudging) and "Other" (ditto that second thing).To be clear: I define "fudging" as, very specifically, "modifying the statistics of, or the rolled results caused by or affecting, any creature that has actually entered the active play space."The most common examples of doing so would be to change a monster's AC/hit bonus/save bonus/save DC after someone has already rolled an attack roll (to change a hit into a miss or a miss into a hit, or change whether a saving throw succeeds or fails), to change whether an attack is  or isn't a crit, or to give or take away a creature's HP (or reduce/increase damage rolls) in order to prolong or quicken a combat. In theory, changing the skill DC for an attempt to perform some kind of action (such as "persuade the king") might also qualify, but it also might not, I have not considered that situation nearly as much as the previous examples.I do not consider it "fudging," for example, if the DM chooses to add reinforcements to a combat already in progress. I would consider it poor form to do that if doing so would contradict established fiction, but poor form is not fudging. E.g., if the players had very carefully taken out ALL the guards before fighting, it would be a crappy move to claim that an unexpected guard patrol just returned at the right(/wrong) time, if the DM had established that there really shouldn't be such a thing (e.g. saying "alright, you've taken out all the guards, you should be much safer to attack the Count now.") If, however, the DM has said, "You know there are patrols elsewhere, so you'll need to work fast, but for now you know there's no more opposition inside the castle," then it's not only acceptable to have guards show up, I would almost consider it a wasted opportunity to not have some guards show up at some point for a dramatic interlude.I further do not consider it "fudging" to use mediocre or sub-par tactics, though again, this can become poor form if mishandled. Characters should do what seems reasonable to them. Usually that means doing the smartest thing they can think of, but sometimes matters of principle or other motivations than "win as quickly and safely as possible" come into play. I very much try to avoid purely metagame reasons for using sub-par tactics...which is part of why I have built a world where most enemies don't go for scorched-earth/kill-'em-all tactics. (There are some exceptions, as I have noted to my players, but these are naturalistic ones--e.g., the assassin-cult generally refuses to let itself be taken prisoner, so the antagonistic faction thereof will fight to the last man and has no desire to permit the PCs to keep living.)</blockquote>

Verification