Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FurryFighter" data-source="post: 4914280" data-attributes="member: 85087">Well I consider that the warlock's player having chosen to speak is in itself controlling what the PC does. I think it is up to the player whether a DC succeeds or fails, based on how well they play out their DC, with eloquent words, or good intimidating words, etc.But I can see how it may seem overly simplified and not so good for gameplay.I suppose there'd have to be DC's against all the hobgoblins. And perhaps some intimidation as well, since they would be dead set to guarding, possibly the only reason they would move is if they knew completely well that it was suicide for them. They are not completely dumb.I think it, given this scenario as an example, would take perhaps 10-15 rolls for all the right checks, and if any one of them failed, then you'd have to go through combat with all the guards anyway.So it'd be part luck with the dice roll for the players, and how the rolls fall will dictate the story and what happens. It is that the possibility of one failure causing any past rolls to be useless that is the thing. It might be a complete waste of time, so there's still a risk involved of getting in a fight and thus making those dice rolls wasted time. Now, if the hobgoblins weren't really inclined to fight to the death, and they weren't guarding for some powerful higher up that could find and squish them with relative ease, 'I'd say DCs would be easier than in the scenario that is the reverse. Perhaps even scaling up to the level of impossible for a given character with given skills. Just saying it won't work doesn't seem in keeping of the game to me, I'd rather roll something the DM knows isn't possible, because my character DOES NOT know about dice rolls, and possible or not, my PC only knows what it sees and what its learned. That seems, to me, to be what roleplay and D&D is about, yes controlling your character and guiding their actions, and rolling dice, but also working with the limitations of what your character knows about the world they inhabit in order to really be creative and see a story unfold. I'd rather roll something that the DM knows isnt going to work, and get the fail, as it unfolds a better story about my PC trying something and it surely does not work, than having a DM say it wont work and bypassing what I think is part of the gameplay experience, that of trying things to acheive immediate and end goals in the game world with your PC.Edit: I've been considering it, and perhaps a DM could also do one of two things:Say half or more of the dice rolls for intimidate, diplo, etc, succeed, but some roll after that fails. Now, the failure would mean the goblins would draw their weapons, which could give them a surprise round on the PCs, as they would be in combat and having to draw and wield their weapons.Orthe DM could decide that the roll causes the goblins to behave as if they had been coerced, but when the PCs turn their back, surprise backstab! This idea might run along the lines of such a scenario as this: THe DM doesnt want the encouter avoided (although the DMG states the players run the story, and you're simply there to facilitate it) or perhaps its an encounter that by all logical reasons should be unavoidable. Then a succeeding DC would not be a way of getting out of it, but digging the PCs into a trap. Much more interesting than "no"..That would add much more danger and risk to trying to make diplo and intimidate rolls to avoid combat outright, thus putting the risk and roleplay into the whole thing.Not bad ideas I made, if I say so myself.when I doubt something, I reread the DM rules to go by, in the DMG</blockquote>

Verification