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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9610950" data-attributes="member: 6785785">You've already described what the rules say to do. That's literally the rules describing the processes of play. And that's before we even get to Rule Zero, which I know you love... which basically says the DM can do whatever they want. In that sense, you could argue that all of D&D is contained in one rule. Referees in football and other sports have to make judgement calls all the time. No, I said it absolutely is a case of changing or removing a rule. So... if it's okay by the rules, then it's fair... but if it's not okay by the rules, then it's unfair. This is what I said.I mean, according to [USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER] it would be an issue 50% of the time. And although this scenario is unlikely to be common at most tables... once you start adding up all the places where GM fiat leaves things so open, it becomes more and more of a concern. That was, I think, part of the point of [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] 's OP... to point out how much is actually going on in a specific example involving one spell. But in the absence of the alarm, couldn't the DM rely on Stealth rolls and Perception rolls to see if anyone wakes up? And let's say the rolls go poorly for the players, couldn't the DM decide that, with the outcome of the action not really in doubt, that the intruder is able to simply kill a PC by slitting their throat? The alarm spell does not say it prevents surprise. That's your interpretation. It's exactly the kind of "unseen" GM fiat being described in the OP. Again, that's your interpretation of the rules. But others may interpret things differently.</blockquote>

Verification