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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5923526" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't think that's acceptable for a lot of people. The reason is psychological more than anything.See, the DM is in a position of trust at the table. "What the DM says goes," "The DM is god," "The DM can kill you if he wants," etc. So when the DM describes an injury, the description they give should be a fairly accurate portrayal of the actual injury. To, at some later date, take it back, to say that's not what really happened, to say, "Yep! The DM gave you false information," is violating that position of trust.It's sort of like, if the DM said at one point that the shopkeeper in town hates your PC, and then later says, "Well, he didn't REALLY hate you, I guess all those times he called you a piker, you were just hearing things."Or if the DM says at one point that the bridge over the chasm is out, and then later says, "Well, it wasn't REALLY out, it just looked like it from your vantage point."Now, a player's ability can act on the reality presented by the DM and change it -- that wound is a deadly wound, but the player can still not die from a deadly wound, through luck, skill, toughness, and general awesome-sauce. But that's not something that changes the wound, it's something that changes the character. A character knocked to 0 hp doesn't suffer the mechanical results of that state because they are deluded (unless, I guess, it's an illusion), they suffer the mechanical results of that state because that is the effect. If they can get back up it is because they are adventurer-tough, not because they were wrong about their information. In a game that operates so much on the mechanism of trust, you can't have "takebacks" be a core rule element.</blockquote>

Verification