Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8474647" data-attributes="member: 16814">I believe you when you say you haven't seen a convincing argument.&nbsp; You assert that there can never be uncertainty in specific cases and then anything that contradicts that is easily shunting into configurations where they don't matter.&nbsp; It doesn't matter that monsters have CHA proficiencies because they'll never deploy them outside of GM solo play (itself not well supported in the rules).&nbsp; It doesn't matter that monster explicitly use ability checks like players to accomplish tasks because you've neatly excised the task of influencing PCs from consideration.&nbsp; It doesn't matter that the rules explicitly call out a use of a CHA skill to influence what a PC thinks because we've got a neat trick that obfuscates this so we can pretend it doesn't actually tell players what PCs think.&nbsp; We also have another neat trick that separates out what a PC knows from what a PC thinks -- a rather strange and arbitrary distinction only useful to support the initial assertion.&nbsp; In fact, the point being missed by all of this is that if you don't adopt the initial assertion you have -- one, if I could remind, that is based on assumption and not direct reference in the rules -- all of these other things immediately add weight to the argument that PCs can be influenced by social proficiencies.&nbsp; This is the logical failure point for me -- your argument is circular.&nbsp; The initial assumption is really assuming the conclusion, so every step along the way is easily dealt with because it's always been right from the initial assumption (that the initial assumption causes other problems in other areas is not considered in this case).&nbsp;&nbsp; The can be shown by this pointing out that all of the evidence against you've discounted entirely because of the initial assumption and not any other reason.&nbsp; If you remove that assumption, that evidence is hard to discount otherwise.&nbsp; Your entire argument is assuming the conclusion in the premise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8474647, member: 16814"] I believe you when you say you haven't seen a convincing argument. You assert that there can never be uncertainty in specific cases and then anything that contradicts that is easily shunting into configurations where they don't matter. It doesn't matter that monsters have CHA proficiencies because they'll never deploy them outside of GM solo play (itself not well supported in the rules). It doesn't matter that monster explicitly use ability checks like players to accomplish tasks because you've neatly excised the task of influencing PCs from consideration. It doesn't matter that the rules explicitly call out a use of a CHA skill to influence what a PC thinks because we've got a neat trick that obfuscates this so we can pretend it doesn't actually tell players what PCs think. We also have another neat trick that separates out what a PC knows from what a PC thinks -- a rather strange and arbitrary distinction only useful to support the initial assertion. In fact, the point being missed by all of this is that if you don't adopt the initial assertion you have -- one, if I could remind, that is based on assumption and not direct reference in the rules -- all of these other things immediately add weight to the argument that PCs can be influenced by social proficiencies. This is the logical failure point for me -- your argument is circular. The initial assumption is really assuming the conclusion, so every step along the way is easily dealt with because it's always been right from the initial assumption (that the initial assumption causes other problems in other areas is not considered in this case). The can be shown by this pointing out that all of the evidence against you've discounted entirely because of the initial assumption and not any other reason. If you remove that assumption, that evidence is hard to discount otherwise. Your entire argument is assuming the conclusion in the premise. [/QUOTE]

Verification