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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="francisca" data-source="post: 1864850" data-attributes="member: 9734">No sweat.  It's a message board, it happens!  <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=":)" />  Well, we've always been fine with trusting players to play what their character knows, not what the player knows, as most of us has spent time behind the screen.  Tweaking and creating monsters is a time-honored tradition, and one of the best parts of  D&D, and part of why we play.  They keep the game fresh for those of us who have a dragon scalp of every color on our trophy shelf.As far as consistency, I'm not 100% convicned that it is any better now than it was before.  A DM is still responsible for putting forth a challenging, but not completely overwhelming (well, not always, anyway) encounter for the PCs to play off of.  CR and all of the well defined mechanics helps to a certain degree, but what if you are playing with a group of 6 players running Fighters and Clerics, or running a game with a higher or lower degree of magic?  It's down to the DM to do his job, in a fair way, just as it always has been.  Despite the streamlined, cohesive ruleset of 3.x, a DM can still screw the party, either through malice or negligence.  It all comes down to trust between the DM and players.  But now we're getting into other threads. Well, I dunno what to say, other than the honor system has worked well with every group I have played with.  The guys I have played with (with some exceptions of course), just plain understand that their characters cannot act on knowledge they do not have.  When they start to stray, it's understood that the DM will prod them back. And sure, the the wizard in your example is going to be able to figure out alot about a particular creature.  Much more than say, the 2nd level wizard the guy was playing in my example.  I understand that, and I take it into account when the knowledge checks are made.  I also try to work in past history at the time.  For example, if the wizard would make the check, I'd make a reference to a musty old tomb he had read while researching spells when he last leveled up, or some such.I never said exclusive.  I'm not B.A. Felton.  I know these guys have the books at home.  I just don't let them thumb through the MM and such at the table.  In retrospect, I guess I didn't make it clear in the original post.  I assumed when I said "never", it would be obvious that I meant it in regards to that situation.</blockquote>

Verification