Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="karolusb" data-source="post: 6746842" data-attributes="member: 83359"><p><em>"The orc intimidates you."</em></p><p><em>"page 66 says that neither adrenaline not brain chemistry can effect my character's actions. . ."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"You have been magically <strong>frightened</strong>."</em></p><p><em>"I don't choose to act <strong>frightened</strong>."</em></p><p><em>"But it's magical."</em></p><p><em>"Page 66 says nothing about only applying to non-magical applications. . ."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"The orc grappled you."</em></p><p><em>"I walk away."</em></p><p><em>"You are grappled."</em></p><p><em>"I determine how I act, and my act is walking away. . ."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"You have been affected by charm person."</em></p><p><em>"I attack the spellcaster."</em></p><p><em>"You consider them to be a friendly acquaintance."</em></p><p><em>"And I would kill a friendly acquaintance who cast charm person on me ;-)" (Wow is it me or should charm person include the charmed condition?)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"Walking all day through the rain makes you feel <strong>exhausted</strong>."</em></p><p><em>"You're not my real GM, you can't tell me how I feel!"</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"What do I see when I open the door."</em></p><p><em>"Our perceptions are a product of our minds. Therefore it would be against the rules for me to describe what you see. . ."</em></p><p></p><p>(Intentional absurdity is intentional, of course absurdity is a product of our minds. . .)</p><p></p><p>At best you are deciding between conflicting rules (and since you always mention the magic exemption it seems you assume that magic takes precedence over page 66), at worst you seem to be ignoring them as much as the worst straw men in the argument. </p><p></p><p>This thread makes me realize how incredibly bad the absolute autonomy and moral superiority argument sounds. </p><p></p><p>I don't think I have ever used persuasion against a player. And there is certainly room for such things to get skeevy (I also would disallow pvp uses of persuation). This is not in line with any understanding of the rules, merely with my own experience (again, you have to go back pretty far for the last time a PC tried to social another pc in my history). I might say someone comes across as convincing, but that would be as far as it goes. </p><p></p><p>If someone fails an insight check I would almost always say "seems legit" (seriously, exactly 'seems legit', maybe there is something wrong with me). Of course assuming I am allowed by rule 66 to describe perceptions, that shouldn't be cheating, then again it seems likely that I would likely be in a model where "seems legit" was isomorphic to "you believe them", which is cheating, gah. </p><p></p><p>Intimidate covers something meaningful to me, ignoring a successful intimidate check should have a consequence (otherwise the intimidate skill should not be based on charisma, which has no actual effect on how likely most people are to beat you up). Depending on the nature of the intimidate I would give it some effect (most likely disadvantage on initiative for the fight that starts because you ignored the guys attempt to intimidate you, or perhaps disad on your choice initiative (flight) or first round attacks (fight) depending on how you choose to channel the adrenaline. . .). </p><p></p><p>Note I don't say a player has to back down (or not kill the guy who told the 'truth'), but there is a consequence to not doing so (actually I have never had a player kill the 'truth' teller, so honestly I am not sure how I would handle it. . .). I would still say you are intimidated (probably in GM rules voice after describing the narrative elements in Character voice). </p><p></p><p>Nothing in the book says the frightened condition (or the charmed condition for that matter) is a consequence of magic (see barbarian Intimidating Presence for a specific example that it isn't). And since the GM determines what conditions affect a character (well assuming that's true. . .), determining that the result of a particular intimidate check is the frightened condition is well within the guidelines of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="karolusb, post: 6746842, member: 83359"] [I]"The orc intimidates you." "page 66 says that neither adrenaline not brain chemistry can effect my character's actions. . ." "You have been magically [B]frightened[/B]." "I don't choose to act [B]frightened[/B]." "But it's magical." "Page 66 says nothing about only applying to non-magical applications. . ." "The orc grappled you." "I walk away." "You are grappled." "I determine how I act, and my act is walking away. . ." "You have been affected by charm person." "I attack the spellcaster." "You consider them to be a friendly acquaintance." "And I would kill a friendly acquaintance who cast charm person on me ;-)" (Wow is it me or should charm person include the charmed condition?) "Walking all day through the rain makes you feel [B]exhausted[/B]." "You're not my real GM, you can't tell me how I feel!" "What do I see when I open the door." "Our perceptions are a product of our minds. Therefore it would be against the rules for me to describe what you see. . ."[/I] (Intentional absurdity is intentional, of course absurdity is a product of our minds. . .) At best you are deciding between conflicting rules (and since you always mention the magic exemption it seems you assume that magic takes precedence over page 66), at worst you seem to be ignoring them as much as the worst straw men in the argument. This thread makes me realize how incredibly bad the absolute autonomy and moral superiority argument sounds. I don't think I have ever used persuasion against a player. And there is certainly room for such things to get skeevy (I also would disallow pvp uses of persuation). This is not in line with any understanding of the rules, merely with my own experience (again, you have to go back pretty far for the last time a PC tried to social another pc in my history). I might say someone comes across as convincing, but that would be as far as it goes. If someone fails an insight check I would almost always say "seems legit" (seriously, exactly 'seems legit', maybe there is something wrong with me). Of course assuming I am allowed by rule 66 to describe perceptions, that shouldn't be cheating, then again it seems likely that I would likely be in a model where "seems legit" was isomorphic to "you believe them", which is cheating, gah. Intimidate covers something meaningful to me, ignoring a successful intimidate check should have a consequence (otherwise the intimidate skill should not be based on charisma, which has no actual effect on how likely most people are to beat you up). Depending on the nature of the intimidate I would give it some effect (most likely disadvantage on initiative for the fight that starts because you ignored the guys attempt to intimidate you, or perhaps disad on your choice initiative (flight) or first round attacks (fight) depending on how you choose to channel the adrenaline. . .). Note I don't say a player has to back down (or not kill the guy who told the 'truth'), but there is a consequence to not doing so (actually I have never had a player kill the 'truth' teller, so honestly I am not sure how I would handle it. . .). I would still say you are intimidated (probably in GM rules voice after describing the narrative elements in Character voice). Nothing in the book says the frightened condition (or the charmed condition for that matter) is a consequence of magic (see barbarian Intimidating Presence for a specific example that it isn't). And since the GM determines what conditions affect a character (well assuming that's true. . .), determining that the result of a particular intimidate check is the frightened condition is well within the guidelines of the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs
Top