Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6588253" data-attributes="member: 6787503">[MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]: I agree with everything you've said. I favor this interpretation of the rules as well because it allows alignment to operate as the rules suggest it does, rather than the other way around. There is no question in my mind that the modifiers labeled &quot;Liege&quot; are to apply only to reactions to a character that is speaking (in which case I intend to ask for a Charisma check), but what of the modifiers for the character's &quot;Associated Group&quot;? Surely, they are not speaking, and yet their alignments (at least the one that is furthest removed) are to influence the outcome of the reaction roll. This leads me to question the necessity of anyone speaking as a prerequisite to a reaction check. For example, what of the reaction of a creature with whom no communication is possible, or who reacts before a character is able to speak? Mightn't the associate modifiers still apply? Notice that the variant reaction check EGG gives on page 10 does not specify attempted communication as the reason for the check, but only uncertainty as to the creature's attitude. The outcome of &quot;discourse&quot; is given as only one of a number of modifiers. Monster reactions in D&amp;D were presented in much the same way, which leads me to wonder if the text you quoted was meant as an elaboration of rules already stated more simply elsewhere, specifically calling out the addition of the Charisma modifier for the purposes of a parley.The example on page 10 is a great example of EGG adding more randomness, and complexity, to his game. The variant is, in essence, not that different from the &quot;official&quot; version, however. It increases the likelihood of an &quot;uncertain&quot; outcome while vastly decreasing the probability of extreme hostility or friendship, but it basically fulfills the same function. I would fully expect EGG to keep playing D&amp;D the way he always did, even while admonishing others to play AD&amp;D by the book. And notice that he does modify the rolls. While he doesn't lay out a set of modifiers, the adjustments he makes for an &quot;offer of tribute or favor&quot;, and &quot;a gift&quot; are pretty much in line with the type of modifiers he lays out elsewhere, and are probably an example of the more intuitive approach he suggests for experienced DMs after the modifiers on page 37.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 6588253, member: 6787503"] [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]: I agree with everything you've said. I favor this interpretation of the rules as well because it allows alignment to operate as the rules suggest it does, rather than the other way around. There is no question in my mind that the modifiers labeled "Liege" are to apply only to reactions to a character that is speaking (in which case I intend to ask for a Charisma check), but what of the modifiers for the character's "Associated Group"? Surely, they are not speaking, and yet their alignments (at least the one that is furthest removed) are to influence the outcome of the reaction roll. This leads me to question the necessity of anyone speaking as a prerequisite to a reaction check. For example, what of the reaction of a creature with whom no communication is possible, or who reacts before a character is able to speak? Mightn't the associate modifiers still apply? Notice that the variant reaction check EGG gives on page 10 does not specify attempted communication as the reason for the check, but only uncertainty as to the creature's attitude. The outcome of "discourse" is given as only one of a number of modifiers. Monster reactions in D&D were presented in much the same way, which leads me to wonder if the text you quoted was meant as an elaboration of rules already stated more simply elsewhere, specifically calling out the addition of the Charisma modifier for the purposes of a parley. The example on page 10 is a great example of EGG adding more randomness, and complexity, to his game. The variant is, in essence, not that different from the "official" version, however. It increases the likelihood of an "uncertain" outcome while vastly decreasing the probability of extreme hostility or friendship, but it basically fulfills the same function. I would fully expect EGG to keep playing D&D the way he always did, even while admonishing others to play AD&D by the book. And notice that he does modify the rolls. While he doesn't lay out a set of modifiers, the adjustments he makes for an "offer of tribute or favor", and "a gift" are pretty much in line with the type of modifiers he lays out elsewhere, and are probably an example of the more intuitive approach he suggests for experienced DMs after the modifiers on page 37. [/QUOTE]

Verification