Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7583222" data-attributes="member: 6776133">I think that argument relies on reading my intent. As for whether anyone else feels defensive, I couldn’t say. As for attacks, I do ask that you give a reasonable statement regarding your intent. You’ll need to have specified, at minimum, which target. “I attack the nearest goblin with my sword” is perfectly sufficient. As we’ve discussed before. And there are situations in which no attack roll would be required. Same for casting a spell. I do need to know what spell you’re casting and presumably on whom. Maybe I don’t understand your point though: how are you casting spells or attacking without saying what you’re doing? Is it like, “16 fire damage to these guys - unless they make saves”? And “that dude takes 4 slashing”? There’s nothing wrong with “I’m trained in investigation - I check for traps.” That states a clear goal “I want to find traps.” I merely want to know HOW you go about checking, as well. That way I know if you automatically find it, stumble across it, stumble across it and set it off, or don’t find it at all because the way you’re doing it can’t work (looking for an invisible trap, for example).  I don’t want a die roll before I set a DC. Knowing the result of your roll before I decide how hard of a task it is might very well seem unfair. Particularly if I decide it’s one higher than what you rolled. But if I tell you what the DC is first, you don’t need to question whether I’ve decided fairly and you can opt out. “Hang on, i didn’t know that would be that difficult and I wouldn’t take that kind of risk.” Fair enough. Or likewise maybe I’ve misunderstood what you intended. Clarifying before the roll benefits the player and encourages intelligent decisions and calculated risks. Can’t do that after a roll though. What’s done is done.</blockquote>

Verification