Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8472989" data-attributes="member: 6921763">The bold part is just not how 5e is laid out.&nbsp; The player doesn't want to roll Intimidate.&nbsp; The player wants to achieve the goal (in this case, intimidating the NPC in order to get them to do X, Y, Z).&nbsp; That's why, as you indicate, it is important for the player to be reasonably specific in their approach and goal.&nbsp; That way, the DM can grant them auto-success (an ideal state for the player and PC), auto-failure (uh-oh, something else must be going on here that is preventing this from working at all), OR the DM asks for an ability check roll if the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.&nbsp; The way I run the roll as DM is as follows (something I didn't inherently grasp from the rules, but learned here at Enworld):&nbsp; I tell the player the DC of their stated approach and goal
I give the stakes - what will happen on a success and what will happen on a failure
I let the player decide if they still want to go through with the action (they almost always do) - this simulates the PC having some sense regarding the difficulty of what they are about to attempt in the game worldSimilarly, I would say the NPC doesn't even know dice exist - they don't want to roll anything.&nbsp; The NPC wants to achieve their goal and their intimidating actions and/or language are the manner in which they are trying to achieve it.Agree that it doesn't really work.&nbsp; Disagree that you can tell the Player that their character is scared, period.&nbsp; Unless you are describing the Frightened condition caused by some NPC ability which usually (always?) comes with a failed save, the Player would decide how the character reacts to an attempted intimidation.[USER=7031982]@Bill Zebub[/USER] covered this succinctly above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8472989, member: 6921763"] The bold part is just not how 5e is laid out. The player doesn't [I]want to roll Intimidate.[/I] The player wants to achieve the goal (in this case, intimidating the NPC in order to get them to do X, Y, Z). That's why, as you indicate, it is important for the player to be reasonably specific in their approach and goal. That way, the DM can grant them auto-success (an ideal state for the player and PC), auto-failure (uh-oh, something else must be going on here that is preventing this from working at all), OR the DM asks for an ability check roll if the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. The way I run the roll as DM is as follows (something I didn't inherently grasp from the rules, but learned here at Enworld): [INDENT]I tell the player the DC of their stated approach and goal I give the stakes - what will happen on a success and what will happen on a failure[/INDENT] [INDENT]I let the player decide if they still want to go through with the action (they almost always do) - this simulates the PC having some sense regarding the difficulty of what they are about to attempt in the game world[/INDENT] Similarly, I would say the NPC doesn't even know dice exist - they don't want to roll anything. The NPC wants to achieve their goal and their intimidating actions and/or language are the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. Agree that it doesn't really work. Disagree that you can tell the Player that their character is scared, period. Unless you are describing the Frightened condition caused by some NPC ability which usually (always?) comes with a failed save, the Player would decide how the character reacts to an attempted intimidation. [USER=7031982]@Bill Zebub[/USER] covered this succinctly above. [/QUOTE]

Verification