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: 6737884" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, firstly, we've established that it's any ability that requires a save is okay?  Yes?  As for your point of PC interaction, I agree that I prefer a table where their isn't constant PC antagonism, but doesn't it short circuit a bunch of possibilities to flatly rule out any possibility that there might be player on player actions?  What if the barbarian is charmed, and another party member is threatening violence on his new bestie?  Is not Intimidating Presence a reasonable use of the power against another player to prevent that?  You hand-wave away important points of conflict because they are hostile to your worldview.The player on player works with social skills, as well.  How do you adjudicate one player intentionally lying to another (surely a situation that isn't outlandish)?  Just let the roleplay, and their character's skills and abilities mean nothing?Yet that's exactly what you did, prior to retconning your position to allow Intimidating Presence due to it's use of the saving throw mechanic (which has never been your stated position prior to this post).  You said that you would not allow that ability to work against players.  And I reject your statement even further.  Even the fact that you are encouraged to overrule or change rules when they don't suit you does not mean that by doing so you aren't ignoring the rule.  And, yes, you've shown where you're supported by the rules (supported in that your opinion of social skills isn't contradicted by the rules -- they don't explicitly support your position, either), but then you also have shown that you'd be willing to ignore abilities with mechanics attached if they don't agree.  Again, that you later changed your mind because you reviewed the specific mechanic and decided that was okay doesn't change the fact that you ignored it prior to that -- a printed class ability with an defined outcome -- because it didn't agree with your presumptions.The ability says, clearly, that if the barbarian uses the ability against any target, including another PC, that that target must make a saving throw or become frightened.  There's no need to determine if the DM thinks there's uncertainly, the game has spelled out the effect -- use, save, outcome.  That you even say at the end that the DM could adjudicate it as automatically successful without the save is interesting, because that's again ignoring the rule as written.  I mean, you're fine to do that, but it's not fine to pretend that such a DM fiat ruling is the same as following the rule.  You're even citing exceptions to the rules when you're claiming that you're not outside the rules.  And, funnily enough, allowing social skills to change character behavior would also be an exception that could prove the general rule of players deciding what the character behavior is.  This is a nonsense argument that doesn't do anything but throw a platitude on top of your argument and pretend it's a cherry.</blockquote>

Verification