Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8474734" data-attributes="member: 2209">One of the arguments seems to be there is no contradictions between ability checks as written and player decides because of the uncertainty aspect of ability checks. It seems that absent the roleplay rule the ability checks rule would on their face apply to attempts to mechanically influence PCs the same way an NPC can attempt to stabilize a dying PC as an example of a wisdom medicine check resolution. The language and concepts both conceptually include both PCs and NPCs. It is because of the roleplay rule that the not certain outcome comes into effect cutting off ability check applicability for the charisma checks.So on their own ability checks are a rule that specifically apply to attempts to influence PCs. Which directly contradicts the roleplay rule. It is only with the addition of the roleplay rule that results go from uncertain to not uncertain and so ability checks change to no longer apply and therefore no longer contradict the roleplay rule. If the ability checks did not have the explicit statement of uncertainty inapplicability or did have a statement of an explicit example of affecting a PC there would be a direct contradiction and ability checks would again be useable under this logic chain.(This is of course ignoring Maxperson's argument that framing the ability checks as affecting somebody instead of NPCs, and the fact that descriptions of persuasion skills went from explicitly being only NPC-affecting to descriptions that can apply to PCs is zero evidence of effects being able to affect PCs while the specific examples in the PH being framed as PCs affecting NPCs is evidence that effects only work on NPCs).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 8474734, member: 2209"] One of the arguments seems to be there is no contradictions between ability checks as written and player decides because of the uncertainty aspect of ability checks. It seems that absent the roleplay rule the ability checks rule would on their face apply to attempts to mechanically influence PCs the same way an NPC can attempt to stabilize a dying PC as an example of a wisdom medicine check resolution. The language and concepts both conceptually include both PCs and NPCs. It is because of the roleplay rule that the not certain outcome comes into effect cutting off ability check applicability for the charisma checks. So on their own ability checks are a rule that specifically apply to attempts to influence PCs. Which directly contradicts the roleplay rule. It is only with the addition of the roleplay rule that results go from uncertain to not uncertain and so ability checks change to no longer apply and therefore no longer contradict the roleplay rule. If the ability checks did not have the explicit statement of uncertainty inapplicability or did have a statement of an explicit example of affecting a PC there would be a direct contradiction and ability checks would again be useable under this logic chain. (This is of course ignoring Maxperson's argument that framing the ability checks as affecting somebody instead of NPCs, and the fact that descriptions of persuasion skills went from explicitly being only NPC-affecting to descriptions that can apply to PCs is zero evidence of effects being able to affect PCs while the specific examples in the PH being framed as PCs affecting NPCs is evidence that effects only work on NPCs). [/QUOTE]

Verification