Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6658622" data-attributes="member: 22779">It's funny though.&nbsp; I asked for an attack that would deal damage and reduce AC, but, because I don't know the first thing about armour, I got refused.&nbsp; However,&nbsp; [MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION]&nbsp; attempts the exact same action, but because he, the player, not the character mind you, he's entirely leveraging his real world knowledge of armour, actually gets to attempt the attack, either at a penalty or with a caveat of needing a higher hit roll.&nbsp; Now do you see what I'm talking about when it comes to consistency?&nbsp; If MoutonRustique and I were playing at the same table, I think I'd have every right to be a bit pissed off here.&nbsp; We are doing identical actions.&nbsp; There is zero difference in what we are attempting, but, because he knows more about armour than I do, he gets to try, while I get left in the dust.&nbsp; Or, reverse it.&nbsp; I make the attempt first, get denied, and then MoutonRustique cannot even make the attempt because it's already been shot down by the DM.This is why I prefer the #2 option listed above.&nbsp; Not for all things.&nbsp; Of course there's always going to be stuff not covered.&nbsp; That's great.&nbsp; Fantastic.&nbsp; But, having some hard coded rules in there for actions means that I'm not entirely at the mercy of the DM whom I have to &quot;convince&quot; that what I'm attempting is reasonable.&nbsp; I mean, @ Sacrosanct has flat out said that it is reasonable since he would allow MoutonRustique to make the attempt.&nbsp; But, I get denied the attempt.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because it wasn't reasonable when I asked for exactly the same action?-----OT&nbsp; [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION]&nbsp; weren'T you the one in this thread talking about making changes to the healing rates in 5e?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6658622, member: 22779"] It's funny though. I asked for an attack that would deal damage and reduce AC, but, because I don't know the first thing about armour, I got refused. However, [MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION] attempts the exact same action, but because he, the player, not the character mind you, he's entirely leveraging his real world knowledge of armour, actually gets to attempt the attack, either at a penalty or with a caveat of needing a higher hit roll. Now do you see what I'm talking about when it comes to consistency? If MoutonRustique and I were playing at the same table, I think I'd have every right to be a bit pissed off here. We are doing identical actions. There is zero difference in what we are attempting, but, because he knows more about armour than I do, he gets to try, while I get left in the dust. Or, reverse it. I make the attempt first, get denied, and then MoutonRustique cannot even make the attempt because it's already been shot down by the DM. This is why I prefer the #2 option listed above. Not for all things. Of course there's always going to be stuff not covered. That's great. Fantastic. But, having some hard coded rules in there for actions means that I'm not entirely at the mercy of the DM whom I have to "convince" that what I'm attempting is reasonable. I mean, @ Sacrosanct has flat out said that it is reasonable since he would allow MoutonRustique to make the attempt. But, I get denied the attempt. Why? Because it wasn't reasonable when I asked for [u]exactly the same action[/u]? ----- OT [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] weren'T you the one in this thread talking about making changes to the healing rates in 5e? [/QUOTE]

Verification