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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 8596755" data-attributes="member: 7029930">Fair enough, but I'm sure you get my drift. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I have given XP to people from both sides of this argument as both parties have made valid points - and I'm pretty neutral on the topic.The times where I can recall amending something in the heat of the moment are when:(i) rolling for random treasure (and it not making sense, being too powerful or too weak or too many duplicates):(ii) beefing up a monster's hit points (but still keeping it within the allowed parameters based on HD); and(iii) a player makes a bad skill check roll and I decide a success with consequences is the best way to adjudicate the failure for that particular situation. In (i), I don't feel like reading the through pages of magical items so I use the die for shortcuts, but it sometimes backfires.In (ii), I feel justified in that I'm still keeping to the min-max of the hit points of the monster and players do not know.In (iii), it's the DM's prerogative in how to adjudicate a particular skill check (failure, degrees of failure, fail-forward, success with consequences, success, degrees of success). Otherwise I don't fudge rolls. A hit-is-a-hit, a miss-is-a-miss, and a save-is-a-save. And unless there is an in game logical reason for who the monsters attack, I also roll openly for that, announcing the parameters just before I roll.Having said all that, I'm sure the DM's who do fudge on occasion or often, know their tables and are successful, but personally I would not want a DM fudging rolls in combat if I were a player.</blockquote>

Verification