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: 6737987" data-attributes="member: 16814">It wasn't a trap question.  I legitimately cannot predict where you come down on things now that you're opening the field to non-magical abilities that dictate what player think.  Where is the line?So... wait, what?  The target of the attack decides the outcome?  What did we just establish about Intimidating Presence?  I had thought that you had established that the target PC would save, and, if they failed, would be subject to the Frightened condition as the ability reads.  But, now it seems as if the PC still can decide to not be Frightened?I mean, I specifically asked what would happen in your game is a PC barbarian used Intimidating Presence on another PC.  You've said, in order: 1)nothing, that kind of thing isn't allowed; 2) oh, it has a save, no I'd allow that; 3) I don't like PvP action, and don't play at tables that have it; and now 4) okay, PvP might happen, but the target player decides what happens to him.  1 disagrees with 2, which is fine as you updated, 3 is nonresponsive to the question, and 4 goes back to 1, ignoring 2.  So, again, if PC1 uses Intimidating Presence on PC2, what happens in your game?Just to be clear, but this means, at your table, the PC and the player are the same.  The PC has no abilities in social interaction that the player does not possess.  So, if, for instance, you have a very gullible (but sweet) player at your table, and another player who happens to be very accomplished actor feeds the first player a line of bullcrap and she buys it, that's perfectly fine even if the first player is playing a cleric of Knowledge with a 20 Wisdom and the Insight skill and the second is playing a 6 Charisma Fighter with no appropriate social skill training?  Because that's what it sounds like you're saying -- character abilities are meaningless in social interaction with other PCs or when the NPCs attempt to use social skills on the PCs.  One then begins to question why anyone would put effort into learning a social skill in your game.It isn't magic, so, no, it was not consistent with your stated position at the time.  It may be now, but only because you may (see above) have broadened your position.This is a red herring.  Either you use the rules as an authority to back your position or you clearly state that you've made your own rulings.  It's clear to me that you've made your own rulings and only selectively quote the rulebook as it supports you.  And, let me be clear, that's perfectly fine.  However, you have also tried very hard to cloak your rulings in the legitimacy of the rules by quoting specific passages with page numbers when they support your position.  Again, to be clear, your position (as possibly amended) is a reasonably valid conclusion from those rules.  However, that said, it's not the only reasonably valid conclusion, nor is it even implied that it's the intended conclusion from those very quotes.  I'd be much more comfortable with your position if you stated it clearly as merely your preference and not as if it's the intent of the rules.</blockquote>

Verification