Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6737712" data-attributes="member: 16814">I see.  Follow-up, then:  how would you adjudicate a player character in your game, who is a barbarian of proper level to have the Intimidating Presence ability, using it against another player character?Apologies for the delving into corner cases, but you've stated that you avoid such corner cases by simply eliminating things from your game that could cause them.  I admit that's a neat way to side step mechanics that don't agree with your philosophy, but let's be clear, that's you intentionally ignoring rules to keep your interpretation intact.  And that's fine, I hope you have excellent fun doing so.  But I'm confused as to how you justify quoting rules and page references that back up your position while hand-waving away other rules that don't.  No, you've cloaked your reasoning as a logical reading of the rules, but you ignore things that disagree, like the Barbarian's Intimidating Presence ability.  I'll grant that you can squint and choose how to apply social skills, but that ability (ETA: the Intimidating Presence ability) clearly disagrees with your philosophy of 'a PC can never be told how the PC thinks or acts unless it's magical compulsion'.  Or a fear spell, natch.  However, those same rules also support using social skills to influence PC thinking.  They seem intentionally vague, perhaps for a reason?  You have a perfectly acceptable interpretation of social skills, but you shouldn't claim that the rules indicate that your interpretation is intended.  It's not intended, it's allowed.</blockquote>

Verification