Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Using social skills on other PCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8474279" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>There seems to be a lot of obfuscation around this issue. It's really very simple in my view. It doesn't even require any excessive digging through the rules to arrive at the following:</p><p></p><p>Ability checks resolve the success or failure of an attempted action when the outcome of is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The DM decides if it's uncertain and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If there is, then the DM sets a DC and calls for an ability check. For intimidation, we're answering the question, "Does the monster intimidate someone else?" (In context, it's getting the monster's target to do something it doesn't want to do.)</p><p></p><p>When it comes to PCs, the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says.</p><p></p><p>If an NPC or PC makes an attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC, the DM has to assess - like any other action - whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. There is no uncertain outcome in this situation, however, since the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says. It's certain that the outcome is whatever the player says it is. No uncertainty, no ability check.</p><p></p><p>Some DMs in this thread are having the NPC or PC making an ability check anyway. They can't set a DC. With no DC, there is no meaningful consequence for failure because there's no way to determine failure from the DM's role. It goes back to the player deciding how to react. The roll, therefore, is answering the question "How intimidating is the monster?" Which is not a task - it's just something that informs the DM's description and/or acts as a stand-in for it. In short, it's not an ability check at all in the way the rules set forth. It's rolling for color or flavor.</p><p></p><p>Are there spells and class features that specifically say the player has to act a certain way? Yes. But that has nothing to do with how ability checks are resolved in situations where an NPC or PC attempts to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8474279, member: 97077"] There seems to be a lot of obfuscation around this issue. It's really very simple in my view. It doesn't even require any excessive digging through the rules to arrive at the following: Ability checks resolve the success or failure of an attempted action when the outcome of is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The DM decides if it's uncertain and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If there is, then the DM sets a DC and calls for an ability check. For intimidation, we're answering the question, "Does the monster intimidate someone else?" (In context, it's getting the monster's target to do something it doesn't want to do.) When it comes to PCs, the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says. If an NPC or PC makes an attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC, the DM has to assess - like any other action - whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. There is no uncertain outcome in this situation, however, since the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says. It's certain that the outcome is whatever the player says it is. No uncertainty, no ability check. Some DMs in this thread are having the NPC or PC making an ability check anyway. They can't set a DC. With no DC, there is no meaningful consequence for failure because there's no way to determine failure from the DM's role. It goes back to the player deciding how to react. The roll, therefore, is answering the question "How intimidating is the monster?" Which is not a task - it's just something that informs the DM's description and/or acts as a stand-in for it. In short, it's not an ability check at all in the way the rules set forth. It's rolling for color or flavor. Are there spells and class features that specifically say the player has to act a certain way? Yes. But that has nothing to do with how ability checks are resolved in situations where an NPC or PC attempts to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Using social skills on other PCs
Top