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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1957528" data-attributes="member: 5890">Is there a word for a double strawman? Maybe we should invent one. Inappropriate use of the term is getting quite cliched around here...Of course, you're trying to justify reponses that are totally inappropriate. What you are saying is "no matter how the rules say the situation should play out - no matter how weak willed the character is, the player should still be able to just totally ignore that, and I consider that a valid response."Go back, get your arguments back on track. Your mixing up what you're arguing against here.You said (paraphrasing) "Why don't social skills work when used by NPCs against PC's?"I said "because some players don't like losing control of any aspect of their character"And you said "Well I think that saying 'I'm playing in character!' would make a good excuse to ignore the situation described by the GM".I said "yeah, it's also called being a jerk"Yeah, because obviously every other character class out there isn't at least as dangerous as a fighter. I mean maybe a fighter isn't going to be intimidated by someone he knows for a fact to be a talentless commoner, but outside that, everyone has something horrible and nasty they can do to the fighter, no matter the size of his muscles. And someone with a high intimidate skill can make the fighter think that they ARE going to do something horrible and nasty, even if they can't.We're talking about mental stuff. We're talking about being scared of someone and reacting appropriately.For some obscure reason, you believe that a character being 6'5 and  a barbarian somehow contributes to the situation. Before you try and use complex concepts, work out what it is that you're actually saying.And someone making a successful check has worked out what the targets 'trigger' is and successfully hit it. It's a successful check. It means that the intimidate worked, via whatever explanation you can think of.No. "Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise)". That's part of them rules. It says "paladins ain't scared of nuthin".If your barbarian wants to be unafraid of anything, then maybe he should find himself a similar ability, or at least a good will save.If it wasn't important to you that somehow, females in D&D are less impressive than men, why was it in your example?Honestly, hong does this much better than you. Go take classes.That would be called "succeeding at the opposed check that forms the intimidate". Or "just roleplaying my character! R0XX0RZ THE MAGNIFICENT bows to noone!!!!!!1111oneone!!two"You fail the roll, you've been intimidated. HOW you back down defines the character, as others have said.And I said that where? Strawman, meet kettle.No. I'm going to keep it all.Yeah, used to bolster, fine. I can't ever see the 6'5 written in the height box on my sheet, or the 'barbarian' ever being used to justify to my GM that I don't need to make a save against fear, or a sense motive check.Or a counter-intimidate roll.</blockquote>

Verification