Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6301795" data-attributes="member: 17106">Since it is an actual rule, I don't see how that could be true. The contradiction embedded in that statement seems inherent to me.I usually don't see it brought up in a neutral context.Indeed, looking at this example here,&nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stridently defined that choosing whether or not a skill challenge is an appropriate venue for mechanical reasoning is not &quot;DM fiat&quot;, but the last time this issue came up, you rather derisively maintained that choosing whether or not a Diplomacy check was an appropriate mechanical resolution for a situation was &quot;DM fiat&quot;. IOW, taking an opposite position on exactly the same thing. Either the two of you have contradictory definitions of this term, or you're both using the same definition (i.e. mine).I don't see how that distinction can hold. For example, if you change a Jump DC at all, that means that at least some possible characters will go from being able to make the check to now not being able to make it (or vice versa).For example, if you change it from 20 to 25, a character with a +10 Jump skill will find it significantly harder but still doable, while a character with +4 Jump will go from having a small chance to no longer having any chance. Are we to understand that an action is or is not &quot;fiat&quot; on a character-by-character basis?And what if, for example, a DM allows and entirely makeable check to be rolled, the character rolls moderately well and succeeds, but the DM decides at the last moment that he really wanted to add in a circumstance modifier, one that coincidentally makes this check a failure while still leaving success a possibility if the character had rolled higher. By your definition, not &quot;fiat&quot;?There is nothing inherently different between changing the odds from 20% and 10% and changing them from 10% to 0%.What do you know.I think the way&nbsp; [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] put it (which I'm cool with) is that it's *the* tool.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6301795, member: 17106"] Since it is an actual rule, I don't see how that could be true. The contradiction embedded in that statement seems inherent to me. I usually don't see it brought up in a neutral context. Indeed, looking at this example here, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stridently defined that choosing whether or not a skill challenge is an appropriate venue for mechanical reasoning is [I]not[/I] "DM fiat", but the last time this issue came up, you rather derisively maintained that choosing whether or not a Diplomacy check was an appropriate mechanical resolution for a situation [I]was[/I] "DM fiat". IOW, taking an opposite position on exactly the same thing. Either the two of you have contradictory definitions of this term, or you're both using the same definition (i.e. mine). I don't see how that distinction can hold. For example, if you change a Jump DC at all, that means that at least some possible characters will go from being able to make the check to now not being able to make it (or vice versa). For example, if you change it from 20 to 25, a character with a +10 Jump skill will find it significantly harder but still doable, while a character with +4 Jump will go from having a small chance to no longer having any chance. Are we to understand that an action is or is not "fiat" on a character-by-character basis? And what if, for example, a DM allows and entirely makeable check to be rolled, the character rolls moderately well and succeeds, but the DM decides at the last moment that he really wanted to add in a circumstance modifier, one that coincidentally makes this check a failure while still leaving success a possibility if the character had rolled higher. By your definition, not "fiat"? There is nothing inherently different between changing the odds from 20% and 10% and changing them from 10% to 0%. What do you know. I think the way [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] put it (which I'm cool with) is that it's *the* tool. [/QUOTE]

Verification