I think "Wizards rule and Fighters Drool" comes down to an imbalance in the codification of spells and skills. Either the spells should have looser rules, or skills should have tighter ones. But that's beside the point of this thread, I believe.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I think "Wizards rule and Fighters Drool" comes down to an imbalance in the codification of spells and skills. Either the spells should have looser rules, or skills should have tighter ones. But that's beside the point of this thread, I believe.
Tony Vargas
Legend
From within the context of the game world, sure, but the game world exists a backdrop for the characters' activities. It's all reactive. Even when things the players don't know anything about, yet, are happening in the background, it's a consequence of the PCs ignoring them or having not uncovered them sooner. ;P
...A pretty fine distinction, I know.
Completely different sub-topic: Intimidation. I get the sense that we're mostly looking at Intimidate as a sort of non-magical fear effect. As I said before, I think that's missing some of the nuance of it as a CHA based skill. If it were just being fearsome, your size, appearance, and ability to demonstrate overwhelming power would be all that mattered. But it's not that, it's using fear to manipulate someone. You have to create fear, or at least pragmatic concern, but also leave an out, an action the subject can take or refrain from that credibly removes the threat, and present reason to think that compliance will bring some modicum of safety. A successful check would thus be that complete package: the intimidator has created the impression that he's a serious threat, but that he can be trusted not to carry through if he's given what he wants. If the target's left thinking "he'll kill me anyway" or "or maybe I can get away" or "I don't know what he wants" - that's a failed intimidate, too, no matter how scared he may be.'
It also needn't be fear of the character making the check - when I call for an intimidate check, it's not always because the player is having his character make a threat or loom menacingly or anything like that. It's can also be when they're offering aid or protection or seeking an alliance. "You should work with us against Fangthane the Render, because he and his horde represent an immediate danger to your community." It's not a direct threat, but it plays on fear and relies on the PC being formidable.
Another not too closely related sub-topic: 5e's basic example of play, what I consider it's core resolution system in a technical sense, is player driven. Player declares an action, the DM narrates the results of the action. Earlier I asked if an NPC intimidating a player really fit that. Now I'll go out on a limb and say that it doesn't. Rather, the player will do something that will lead to an interaction with an NPC, that might involve the NPC trying to intimidate (or deceive or whatever) and the DM would take that into account in narrating the results of the PC's action, including, possibly, a check or opposed check. Just how I'd see it working in 5e.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Nod. It's a given. The Grandfather of Assassins tries to intimidate your character. But, you can RP your character as cool as a cucumber, dice be damned, because no mere skill can change how you decide your character reacts, but a low level mage drops Scare on your character, better not roll a 1 on that save.
That could conceivably happen, if the DM didn't describe the ambient temperature, and it wasn't obvious from the context of what he did describe. And, yeah, it'd be funny.
You can decide that, and if it matched your traits & flaws, and it was really cold, you might get Inspiration for it, as well as frostbite. ;P
Last edited:
sunshadow21
Explorer
That, at least is consistent with your position on the skills in question. There are some in the the thread that are perfectly happy to use the effect when it's magic, but not when it's a skill, and that's where my confusion comes in.
robus
Lowcountry Low Roller
From what I've read it's been answered a few times.
Magic is involuntary. The PC has no choice in the matter.
With an interaction the PC can role-play their response. A good role play response could result in inspiration from the DM. But whatever, the PC gets to choose.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Cool as a Cucumber. The Grandfather of Assassins is immune to fear.
sunshadow21
Explorer
Every version of D&D is to a certain extent, and in some ways 5E is less so than some systems. I would question the amount that a player can drive things when they have to look to the DM to for virtually everything. In some ways, 3.x is far more player driven because there are a lot more rules and conditions actually spelled out; the player still has to get the DM to go along with it, but the DM isn't the one making up most of the details, so players tend to have a lot more influence over the process. 5E is a lot more narrative, which means it's as player driven as the details provided by the DM allows, nothing more and nothing less. And importantly, it's just as easy for an NPC to trigger a dice roll in 5E as it is in 4th, 3rd, or any of the earlier editions, since the DM has the information needed to do so, while in many cases it's harder for the player, because the player often doesn't have that level of information. It's the strength and weakness of 5E. A good DM can do a lot with it, and it can be the most fun a player has ever had, but it takes not only a good DM, but really a full group of people willing to fully engage in the game to really reach it's potential. It's possible to have an average, but fun enough, session of 3.x. With a DM centric game like 5E or 4E, there is very little middle groundj; it's either really, really good or really not. It's hard for me to see that kind of system as particularly player driven when the DM has so much control over the outcome.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
so my whole data turning off his emotion chip thing...
I found this on you tube... it's picard he shares the scene with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kthHrC88K7c
sunshadow21
Explorer
Except that the expected result from many of the examples given by those who make that argument fundamentally has the same effect as magic, but they are unwilling to treat it the same way they do magic, despite the effect being effectively exactly the same. That is the part that I don't get; they expect, oftentimes even require, a magic like effect to even consider it worthwhile, but get all finicky over the fact that the source is not magic. So the skill is forced into a position that seems very odd to me, especially since many of them are perfectly happy to use magic to achieve the exact same effect. And most DM's I've played under don't even make magic that particularly involuntary until you get to the really high level magic. Being hit with Charm Person has never in any game I've played in required a specifc action; it forces a specific mindset that influences actions, but that is it. An character, either an NPC or a PC, making a check to deceive, intimidate, or diplomacize has the exact same effect; it's enough to create a specific mindset, but not enough to force specifics. It really seems to me like a lot of people are giving these skills a lot more power than they actually have, and in the process, tend to make things a lot more confusing then is really necessary for most games. It works in some games fine, but it's usually more trouble than it's worth.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Darn sentence structure.
Nod. It's a given. The Grandfather of Assassins tries to intimidate your character. But, you can RP your character as cool as a cucumber, dice be damned, because no mere skill can change how you decide your character reacts, but a low level mage drops Scare on your character, better not roll a 1 on that save.
Better? ;P
