Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ggroy" data-source="post: 4857512" data-attributes="member: 83805">This was essentially what I was looking for.I was hoping the &quot;rules lawyer&quot; type guy would have been the first to figure out exactly what I was doing, but it turns out he didn't.&nbsp; This &quot;rules lawyer&quot; guy was also very tough too when it came to rules type arguments.I certainly would be too.&nbsp; The smarter GM's who pull off such stunts on a regular basis without being caught, probably won't even say a word about it.&nbsp; They'll just take their &quot;secret&quot; with them to their graves.I suppose if I had told the players about my &quot;experiment&quot; immediately after the game campaign was over, most likely they would have been flabbergasted or even really pissed about it.&nbsp; After a year or so later, my game wasn't in the forefront of their minds any longer.&nbsp; The players thought it was kind of amusing in hindsight.The &quot;rules lawyer&quot; guy asked me more about what I was doing during the &quot;experiment&quot;, where I mentioned things which I thought he could have noticed.&nbsp; Apparently he didn't notice any of these things at first as being obvious.&nbsp; The only thing he mentioned which looked really off, were the wildly different attack rolls which hit and didn't hit.&nbsp; He attributed that to my use of a &quot;defense roll&quot; every time a monster/badguy was attacked by a player.&nbsp; Sometimes his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 10, while other times his fighter completely missed on a total attack roll of an 17 or 18.&nbsp; On the next round, his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 17.&nbsp; (The total attack roll is the d20 with all the modifiers added in).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ggroy, post: 4857512, member: 83805"] This was essentially what I was looking for. I was hoping the "rules lawyer" type guy would have been the first to figure out exactly what I was doing, but it turns out he didn't. This "rules lawyer" guy was also very tough too when it came to rules type arguments. I certainly would be too. The smarter GM's who pull off such stunts on a regular basis without being caught, probably won't even say a word about it. They'll just take their "secret" with them to their graves. I suppose if I had told the players about my "experiment" immediately after the game campaign was over, most likely they would have been flabbergasted or even really pissed about it. After a year or so later, my game wasn't in the forefront of their minds any longer. The players thought it was kind of amusing in hindsight. The "rules lawyer" guy asked me more about what I was doing during the "experiment", where I mentioned things which I thought he could have noticed. Apparently he didn't notice any of these things at first as being obvious. The only thing he mentioned which looked really off, were the wildly different attack rolls which hit and didn't hit. He attributed that to my use of a "defense roll" every time a monster/badguy was attacked by a player. Sometimes his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 10, while other times his fighter completely missed on a total attack roll of an 17 or 18. On the next round, his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 17. (The total attack roll is the d20 with all the modifiers added in). [/QUOTE]

Verification