NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8687007" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think you can tell me which statement I intended to be included within the special pleading.  Let's not do that, okay, especially since it's not true, and my response certainly doesn't rest on that claim alone.  It has a broader base.Here, you've engaged in even more special pleading in asserting that there is only a specific set of required player authorships and that anything past that is the problem.  You haven't established anything except an arbitrary metric for determining what falls into what category.  And the one that appears to be being used is the set of things that you are familiar and comfortable with.Here's a solid example:  knowledge checks.  A PC asks if their character knows anything about a setting detail, monster, or situation. The GM asks for a knowledge check.  The PC succeeds, and knows a thing.  This is pretty standard, and, I believe, covered in the 5e basic rules, even ( a quick check confirms this).  So, when did the PC learn that?  We don't know if the PC knows this thing or not, hence the ask for a check, which then determines if the PC never learned this information or that they've learned it as some time in the past (which is often left undetermined).  What's the difference between finding out if a PC already knew a thing and finding out if the PC already had a knife?  We're well into standard 5e play here with the INT checks, so you're going to need to apply your metric and show how it allows for one and not the other via a non-arbitrary means.</blockquote>

Verification