Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8475101" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sigh.  Sure, and if this is your point that all of it is meaningless, including any assertions you make about the game.  Further, this kind of argument makes it seem like I'm reaching for Rule Zero or whatever rather than pointing out that the game makes this kind of allowance directly within the core game loop in the very first description of how play operates in the PHB.  And continues to repeat it in multiple places.  It's another bit of strawmanning.Well, this would apply to many things, then, and we'd never be able to move to using ability checks so long as at least one player holds onto roleplaying.  I don't think this case applies -- the GM decides when a given action declaration is uncertain.  Monsters are explicitly allowed to take actions that are adjudicated like player actions in the loop (otherwise we're in trouble for a lot of other 5e play).  So, the GM must have the authority to suspend roleplaying and move to a mechanical resolution.  We can clearly see this in PC play -- when a player is roleplaying and an action appears to be uncertain, the GM can halt the roleplaying and ask for a check.  This isn't controversial (I don't think).  It's only when we consider if a non-PC does something that suddenly the GM lacks any general authority to make this switch?  And that this is a second order effect from another rule because it's not clearly stated to be the case?Again, because it seems I'm being treated poorly here, I 100% agree that PCs being immune to CHA proficiencies is RAI.  I 100% agree that this approach lends to better play at my table than the alternative and that I will advocate for using it.  HOWEVER, I find the argument you are proposing to support your claims, and the claim that this is the best logical interpretation of the rules, is terribly flawed and is actually a circular argument where you're assuming your conclusion in your premise.  I'm arguing against the argument, here, not the position the argument is trying to support.</blockquote>

Verification