Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5572117" data-attributes="member: 18280">Agree.  However, see below.Disagree.The rules are clear, as Imaro says, that the creature -- any creature -- has this knowledge.  What the creature then does with this knowledge need not be considered for Imaro's point to be valid.However, that is a danger of exception-based design....unless ever possible exception is codified.  I, personally, wouldn't want to have to wade through the rulebooks of such a system.  IMHO, and IME, that's one of the reasons we have a GM....to adjudicate when non-codified exceptions should be made.HOWEVER (and it is a big HOWEVER), it is more than a little problematic, IMHO, that anyone should claim that the GM should adjudicate when non-codified exceptions should be made only when those exceptions do not affect the PCs.  I have no interest in such game play.  YMMV, obviously, and obviously some people's M does V.  However, the DM maintains that right and responsibility in 4e, per RAW, and that is as important a part of the RAW as the part that says a creature is aware of an effect.  The big problem here isn't the exception-based design, but the vocal minority who claim that the GM should not adjudicate when it affects their characters in a negative way.Again, IMHO.  YMMV.RC</blockquote>