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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7166917" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't think I follow this reasoning. If I expect an encounter to involve some climbing on the part of the PCs, and so I come up with a table that reflects climbing DCs for the areas of the encounter location....i genuinely don't really see how that's different than if I just assign a climb DC at the time a PC tries to climb a wall in the encounter. I can understand how it helps you given your table's style and expectations....you can show them afterward "see? it was a DC 15 check per my notes" but beyond that, I don't see any distinction. It's a DM deciding on a DC.To some extent, yes, but ultimately, no. In both instances, the DM has decided "it's a DC 15 climb check for this wall" or "there are 5 trolls in this room, and 2 more in the next room that will react to the sound of combat within 3 rounds". It's just a question of when the DM decides this. If the DM's ability to judge is sound, then I don't see the issue of when this decision is made. I can appreciate a different way of thinking...I don't think I'd continue to discuss it if I didn't appreciate your thoughts. I may question things, but it's more to understand the reasoning behind the approach you take, not a lack of appreciation for the style you prefer. But doesn't it go through a DM in between anyway? Isn't any PC action then filtered through some kind of DM judgement and then an outcome is determined? So if the sequence of events is this:PC ActionDM Looks at his pre-written notesDM abdicates the actionThen I don't see a difference from this:PC ActionDM thinks about the mitigating factorsDM abdicates the actionIn either case, the middle step requires DM judgement. I hope that's clearer.</blockquote>

Verification