Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5606334" data-attributes="member: 22779">Let me take a different approach.PC group includes a monk gets into a fight with a giant.&nbsp; PC monk attacks the giant.&nbsp; The DM rules that the monk cannot hurt the giant since the 180 pound unarmed monk simply cannot generate enough damage to harm the 3 ton giant.&nbsp; Jackie Chan can't kill an elephant with his bare hands after all.&nbsp; It breaks the DM's views of plausibility.Would you argue with your DM here?&nbsp; Should the players simply accept this ruling and move on?And, if you would argue with the DM, how is this any different than the unbluffable guard?See, I look at JamesonCourage's example of the Diplomat Impersonation upthread and think, &quot;Well, the PC succeeded at his bluff, the guard actually believes that the PC is the real diplomat.&nbsp; While he certainly could start the endless chain resulting in a zero chance of the PC's to succeed, it's also perfectly valid that he could decide that this is way above his pay grade and just let the diplomat through.&quot;After all, he's just a gate guard.&nbsp; It's not like he actually knows anything really.&nbsp; He's just a side player.&nbsp; Why negate the player's success?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5606334, member: 22779"] Let me take a different approach. PC group includes a monk gets into a fight with a giant. PC monk attacks the giant. The DM rules that the monk cannot hurt the giant since the 180 pound unarmed monk simply cannot generate enough damage to harm the 3 ton giant. Jackie Chan can't kill an elephant with his bare hands after all. It breaks the DM's views of plausibility. Would you argue with your DM here? Should the players simply accept this ruling and move on? And, if you would argue with the DM, how is this any different than the unbluffable guard? See, I look at JamesonCourage's example of the Diplomat Impersonation upthread and think, "Well, the PC succeeded at his bluff, the guard actually believes that the PC is the real diplomat. While he certainly could start the endless chain resulting in a zero chance of the PC's to succeed, it's also perfectly valid that he could decide that this is way above his pay grade and just let the diplomat through." After all, he's just a gate guard. It's not like he actually knows anything really. He's just a side player. Why negate the player's success? [/QUOTE]

Verification