Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 2999016" data-attributes="member: 5171">No. I do think there's a point to a Will save. An Intimidate check turns a target NPC's attitude to Friendly while threatened (which can be direct observation or perceived area of threat, depending upon the Intimidate check). A Friendly attitude doesn't automatically mean you follow orders. It means that it's a lot harder for you NOT to follow orders.Hence, Will save. The D&D charm person spell turns you Friendly, and that uses opposed Charisma checks. Different mechanic, but would you have a problem with opposed Charisma checks, too, even though they're right there in the Charm Person spell?It's not holding their hand. It's actually making a stat matter. If the bad guy is a Charismatic Hero who's trying to trick you into attacking him with all his henchmen around by using a Bluff, and you have no ranks in Sense Motive as a PC and thus lose the opposed roll by a lot, then you're looking at either:1) Doing exactly what the bluffing party wants, by nature of the bluff2) Ignoring the bluff, which I consider as valid as choosing to ignore a low attack roll because "I would swing better than that."3) Coming up with some middle ground -- like, for example, a Will save to catch yourself at the last moment.Why not? Non-snark -- I ask this in all sincerity. If you're playing a Fighter, and the DM's evil sorcerer charms you, do you have difficulty helping him out by loaning him a few of your potions and telling him what the party's plan is? If you're playing a Rogue, and the DM's evil vampire dominates you, do you have difficulty asking your fellow party members to come into the room?I have a frank talk with my players at the beginning of campaigns, in which I tell them that there will be occasions where bad guys are going to try to manipulate them, either with magic or with really high skill checks. I ask the players if they can roleplay that convincingly and with a good sense of fun.If they say yes, then this is largely what I go with -- normal rules, and Will saves to give players a chance to steer into the skid.If they say no, then I pretty much work around them. If someone bluffs them successfully and they choose to ignore it, then I work behind the scenes so that whatever the PC did turned out to be what the bad guy wanted them to do. (Mind you, this is ONLY if the bluff is successful -- and most bad guy bluffs are at a fairly big penalty to begin with.) So if the bad guy says, "I'll be happy to surrender. But can I get my coat from upstairs? You can come with me if you like," and the heroes fail the bluff check but still say, "No! You walk out that door with us RIGHT NOW!", then the bad guy shrugs sadly, steps outside, and is whisked up by the henchmen in the car who were waiting for him.Also mind you, that's only if I don't get a yes-vote on "Can I roleplay being manipulated?"And also also mind you, this kind of thing pops up pretty rarely. I don't run melodramas of manners in which this sort of thing happens eight or ten times a session.I think the "I don't think non-FX mind control is fair" comment is the core of our disagreement. My buddy is a psych student going for her doctorate in business and negotiation, and it's AMAZING to hear her talk about the different facets of manipulation, and how much manipulation works on people. I wouldn't use these mechanics in an FX game, since the magic is the metaphor for those things, but I'd definitely use them in a non-FX game.</blockquote>

Verification