Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8475375" data-attributes="member: 7031982">Let me clarify, I don't think there's a &quot;carve-out&quot; for social skills.&nbsp; Monsters can take actions, and the DM can rule that resolution of those actions requires a roll, and that roll may use the proficiency bonus from a skill.&nbsp; No carve-outs.But a consequence of that outcome...regardless of which attribute or skill were used...cannot, in my interpretation, be that a player doesn't control action declarations for their character (&quot;except exceptions&quot;).So, as I said up-thread, if you want to rule that the orc has successfully intimidated the player character, go for it.&nbsp; But the player character still gets to decide how their character reacts to being intimidated, and that might be something that, to the DM, seems like the opposite of being intimidated.&nbsp; In my mind that makes the &quot;intimidated&quot; declaration moot, and you might as well just describe the orc as intimidating.&nbsp; But to each their own.By the way, a variant of the &quot;monster vs. monster persuasion&quot; scenario might be that a PC and NPC A are both trying to persuade NPC B to do opposite things.&nbsp; (&quot;Throw me the idol!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;No, throw ME the idol!&quot;). This can be resolved by having both the PC and NPC A roll Charisma (Persuasion).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8475375, member: 7031982"] Let me clarify, I don't think there's a "carve-out" for social skills. Monsters can take actions, and the DM can rule that resolution of those actions requires a roll, and that roll may use the proficiency bonus from a skill. No carve-outs. But a consequence of that outcome...regardless of which attribute or skill were used...cannot, in my interpretation, be that a player doesn't control action declarations for their character ("except exceptions"). So, as I said up-thread, if you want to rule that the orc has successfully intimidated the player character, go for it. But the player character still gets to decide how their character reacts to being intimidated, and that might be something that, to the DM, seems like the opposite of being intimidated. In my mind that makes the "intimidated" declaration moot, and you might as well just describe the orc as intimidating. But to each their own. By the way, a variant of the "monster vs. monster persuasion" scenario might be that a PC and NPC A are both trying to persuade NPC B to do opposite things. ("Throw me the idol!" "No, throw ME the idol!"). This can be resolved by having both the PC and NPC A roll Charisma (Persuasion). [/QUOTE]

Verification