Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JacktheRabbit" data-source="post: 812403" data-attributes="member: 525">I diasgree here for one simple reason. What I changed is items from the Monster Manual and from the DMG. The only book a player should operate from is the PHB. If I change a rule in the PHB then obviously I tell them because those are rules they have access to 24/7.The rules though in the DMG and MM are not their rules for lack of a better term. They are behind the scene rules and technically a player should only know about them if he is a DM as well. So why should I tell them I changed a rule that as players they should not know anyways and their characters have no experience with at all?What would telling them have accomplished? I tell the players something their characters dont know. They say they won't use this information but are you sure?I am pretty sure the cleric in the party memorized magic weapon because he knew the DR rules and figured it would get past the were-rats DR to his credit the cleric never complained or said a thing. I know for certain that the complaining player thought the Magic Weapon should work. Yet neither of them had an in character reason for knowing that and acting on that.So basically the party went into the fight more gung-ho than they should have been because of meta-knowledge. Basically they figured that they could grant the main melee guy full ability to hurt the foes.If I had told them that I changed the rule then it suddenly becomes pointless for me to have bothered.Now instead they get all cautious. Even though the main melee guy kicked ass in the last battle they now know he got lucky with high damage rolls. So now the party doesnt charge out gung-ho for meta reasons and refuses to act until everyone in the party has a silver weapon.Which one is the better situation for me? I chose the first one because it slightly punishes them for using meta-knowledge and keeps an air of mystery and confusion going in the game.</blockquote>

Verification