Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7606236" data-attributes="member: 97077">Yes, if the player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. In this example, including what you added, we have two action declarations: (1) The barbarian wants to go to Ye Ole Magick Shoppe to buy some thunderwave scrolls for the wizard and (2) The wizard's player wants to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to take the aforementioned action to satisfy what appears to be an incredulous DM's questions about the validity of the action declaration. So what is the Arcana check for? What uncertain outcome does it resolve? What is the meaningful consequence for failure? Or, if you decide you don't like that rule, what actually happens if the wizard's player botches the Arcana check? Does the wizard not have the knowledge to retroactively give the barbarian a reason to buy the scrolls? If so, does that mean the barbarian's action declaration is made invalid and he or she can't take that action at all?Again, not the DM's problem, which appears to be something upon which we agree.What wouldn't be fun here in your opinion?Again, not the DM's problem - which we appear to agree on. Going back to the thread's topic, if they had cold-damage cantrips, that just reduces the difficulty of the challenge to the player. The difficulty was higher because they didn't have that resource, so they had to work a bit harder to overcome the challenge.But they do have an incentive, since they are encouraged by the DM changing things to verify assumptions before acting upon them. This doesn't mean they will always do it. Incentives don't guarantee an outcome; they merely motivate or encourage certain behaviors. In this case, reasonably cautious engagement with the environment to avoid additional resource expenditure.</blockquote>

Verification