Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8198861" data-attributes="member: 97077">The threshold for reasonable specificity looks different for the task of attacking and the task of recalling lore. &quot;I attack the orc to the left with my sword...&quot; is sufficient because it spells out the target and the means of attack. That is all that is needed to adjudicate. If the orc has a means of defense, then the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, so the player must make an attack roll. &quot;I try to recall the weaknesses of trolls based on my time living in Moonstair, near the Trollhaunt Warrens...&quot; is sufficient because it establishes the necessary information for the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Here the DM might just give them the knowledge without a roll because the information happens to coincide with the character's history. Being reasonably specific here benefits everyone: The player stands to get the information without a roll. The DM has an easier time adjudicating. And the group gets to enjoy a little extra detail about one of the characters.As for &quot;asking the right question,&quot; my experience with D&amp;D 5e is that it is unnecessary. Gaining inside knowledge of a monster isn't typically required for defeating it. It's a nice-to-have, not a must-have. You can also imagine that a DM like myself who advocates for telegraphing is providing clues as to the monster's threat level and weaknesses while describing the environment. The troll, for example, is avoiding the brazier or campfire like the plague during the fight. Players who are paying attention can use this information to their advantage without successfully recalling lore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8198861, member: 97077"] The threshold for reasonable specificity looks different for the task of attacking and the task of recalling lore. "I attack the orc to the left with my sword..." is sufficient because it spells out the target and the means of attack. That is all that is needed to adjudicate. If the orc has a means of defense, then the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, so the player must make an attack roll. "I try to recall the weaknesses of trolls based on my time living in Moonstair, near the Trollhaunt Warrens..." is sufficient because it establishes the necessary information for the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Here the DM might just give them the knowledge without a roll because the information happens to coincide with the character's history. Being reasonably specific here benefits everyone: The player stands to get the information without a roll. The DM has an easier time adjudicating. And the group gets to enjoy a little extra detail about one of the characters. As for "asking the right question," my experience with D&D 5e is that it is unnecessary. Gaining inside knowledge of a monster isn't typically required for defeating it. It's a nice-to-have, not a must-have. You can also imagine that a DM like myself who advocates for telegraphing is providing clues as to the monster's threat level and weaknesses while describing the environment. The troll, for example, is avoiding the brazier or campfire like the plague during the fight. Players who are paying attention can use this information to their advantage without successfully recalling lore. [/QUOTE]

Verification