Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8474773" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I think that’s not just one of the arguments, but THE argument.Seems so.I disagree with you here. In my understanding, ability checks are the way the DM resolves actions when the fictional positioning alone is not enough to determine what the results of the action will be. This does not contradict the roleplay rule. Now, if it were not for the roleplay rule, there would most likely be situations where the fictional positioning alone was not enough to determine the outcome of an action taken to influence a PC’s decisions. But since the roleplay rule exists, there are not. The DM can always determine without calling for a check that an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions will fail. There are still, however, other actions that an NPC might take where the outcome is uncertain and a social proficiency is applicable, so they are still useful to list in NPC stat blocks.Sure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8474773, member: 6779196"] I think that’s not just one of the arguments, but THE argument. Seems so. I disagree with you here. In my understanding, ability checks are the way the DM resolves actions when the fictional positioning alone is not enough to determine what the results of the action will be. This does not contradict the roleplay rule. Now, if it were not for the roleplay rule, there would most likely be situations where the fictional positioning alone was not enough to determine the outcome of an action taken to influence a PC’s decisions. But since the roleplay rule exists, there are not. The DM can always determine without calling for a check that an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions will fail. There are still, however, other actions that an NPC might take where the outcome is uncertain and a social proficiency is applicable, so they are still useful to list in NPC stat blocks. Sure. [/QUOTE]

Verification