Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6202181" data-attributes="member: 17106">The enemy declared his intention to attack. The PC spoke out attempting to negotiate. The enemy won initiative, attacked, and floored the PC before he had a chance to act. This isn't even an example of disallowing the check; it's simply adjudicating the passage of time in such a way that made it impossible.As far as I know, my character still has his Diplo and Bluff ranks, and has used them in plenty of other circumstances when it was more feasible.Regardless of what you think of it, this post by [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] is perfectly apt:The DM didn't decide that the character has no skill or no desire to attack (or diplomacize, or whatever). He simply determined that it was unfeasible for that action to occur under the circumstances.The DM telling you that you can't use Diplomacy because the opponent is uninterested in talking is no different than him telling you that you can't use the sleep mechanics because there's a battle going on and it's too loud for you to sleep, or saying that you can't use Knowledge (Dungeoneering) to learn about a mind flayer cult because that cult has peen a perfectly guarded secret since its inception, or that you can't use Swim because your character is not in the water.I see nothing in the skills section that says the player determines it. As far as I'm concerned, that mountain of text in the DMG applies to everything; I see no basis for a special exception for skills.That being said, check out this text from the 3.5 PHB:Again, this is not ambiguous.In my situation, the action I wanted to take did not fit the DM's scene; in his mind, the NPC was already attacking by the time I got around to declaring my intention to talk. If more time had passed, I could have spent an action talking, and he would have been free to declare the task of negotiating with a raging berserker practically impossible (well within reason) or even actually impossible (still within reason), or set a DC that I could not have even come close to making while using the rules as guidelines.Sure it does. Do you want me to copy the entire section of chapter 1 in the DMG where it talks about doing that?Not true. He adjudicated the situation well within the rules; the rules make it clear that Diplomacy takes time and there's no requirement that the NPCs do nothing during that time; he even rolled initiative and used the rules for time and actions as presented. He also was well within the advice in the DMG; there's a perfectly logical explanation: NPC wasn't interested in talking.You're might be playing 4e right, but it sounds like you were playing 3e "wrong". Or at least, like you completely ignored the DMG (and apparently the PHB) and ran the game in a very different way than it was written. I'd rather leave the value judgement out of it.2e is D&D too. I understand that you don't want what 3e (or 2e, or PF, apparently) is offering, but I don't understand why you're posting in this thread at all if that's the case.I question the use of the word "arbitrary". In this much harped-on example, it is not at all arbitrary; there's a clear logical justification that would make perfect sense if you stripped out the game mechanics and explained it to someone who doesn't play D&D. One guy tried to talk, the other guy literally cut him off before he had the chance.An arbitrary exercise of discretion would more like be the other example you gave: a player declaring an attack and the DM deciding it doesn't happen. Is that within the rules? Yes. Is he within the guidelines? Not without some logical justification.</blockquote>

Verification