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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6159773" data-attributes="member: 17106">Because they're cute. If there were a D&D monster with an SoD and a deceptively benign appearance, I bet it would be really dangerous. I don't know of any.A more apt analogy would be comparing the rules on Knowledge with the rules on attacks, period. That's a more similar scope. By comparison, the former is pretty light.The actual words the character says are in-game.I think there's a pretty clear distinction in D&D that you control the character's mind but not his body.That would be the sort of thing that sensible DM interpretation of what the DC is and the scope of successful check easily prevents.There are, but I am not aware of any D&D skills that meet that description.Getting rid of trained only accomplishes precisely that goal.Wait, so you're okay with a character benefiting from a player's knowledge for substituting the function of knowledge checks, but not his speech construction for diplomacy checks?(I'm okay with both because you inhabit the character's mind and both are mental)No, there isn't. "That's a basilisk, don't look at it" is knowable to characters. Its HD are not readily observable.I don't understand the first question. As to the second, it's a good question, but they didn't really know for sure. Of course, they have a general idea of relative power levels, and one imagines that high-powered criminals who get the death penalty are a very valuable commodity. But there is a gamble there.And the last question, the players could use the same approach, assuming they could find and chaperon a suitable sacrifice, pay all the normal costs, and have no moral compunction about killing someone in cold blood in exchange for a resurrection.</blockquote>

Verification