Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="VorpalStare" data-source="post: 2374336" data-attributes="member: 31325">OK, I think it's time to put this argument to rest and just agree to disagree on this. I respect your argument, and agree that it has a lot of merit. At the same time, I think I've made my point and that my reasoning is more sound. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> &nbsp;If I was playing in your game, and you ruled as you posted here, I wouldn't object too much. I'd just chalk this up to another place where the rules don't make very good sense, and the DM has the ultimate say on campaign rules. Many players, however, play D&amp;D for the immersive experience and wouldn't let this go so easily without adequate explanation. &quot;Because it's not spelled out explicitly.&quot; just doesn't always cut it.&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree with you. In my experience, the normal sequence play is:1. The player declares his action either descriptively or explicitly: &quot;I introduce his face to my knee&quot;, &quot;I grab his spell component pouch&quot;2. The DM requests the appropriate roles: &quot;Make an attack roll.&quot;, &quot;Make a touch attack and an opposed disarm roll.&quot;, etc.3. Resolve the action&nbsp;Miscommunication is usually revealed in step 2, where the player notes that the die rolls requested don't match his intended action &quot;Wait! I don't want to grapple him, just hit him.&quot;&nbsp;With good DM player communication, and some experience working together, things work very smoothly and the player characters' actions are both explicit and descriptive (something I, too, would like to see more of in my games).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="VorpalStare, post: 2374336, member: 31325"] OK, I think it's time to put this argument to rest and just agree to disagree on this. I respect your argument, and agree that it has a lot of merit. At the same time, I think I've made my point and that my reasoning is more sound. ;) If I was playing in your game, and you ruled as you posted here, I wouldn't object too much. I'd just chalk this up to another place where the rules don't make very good sense, and the DM has the ultimate say on campaign rules. Many players, however, play D&D for the immersive experience and wouldn't let this go so easily without adequate explanation. "Because it's not spelled out explicitly." just doesn't always cut it. I agree with you. In my experience, the normal sequence play is: 1. The player declares his action either descriptively or explicitly: "I introduce his face to my knee", "I grab his spell component pouch" 2. The DM requests the appropriate roles: "Make an attack roll.", "Make a touch attack and an opposed disarm roll.", etc. 3. Resolve the action Miscommunication is usually revealed in step 2, where the player notes that the die rolls requested don't match his intended action "Wait! I don't want to grapple him, just hit him." With good DM player communication, and some experience working together, things work very smoothly and the player characters' actions are both explicit and descriptive (something I, too, would like to see more of in my games). [/QUOTE]

Verification