Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8476761" data-attributes="member: 71699">One way you might like to develop your line of argument here is as follows<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are endless things that players can attempt, that will be governed by ability checks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Can we really say that endless things - that have only the barest definition in RAW - are specific enough to beat the general of PHB 185?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Supposing we say that they're not (specific enough) then aren't those things covered by skills just the same?</li> </ol>To which I might respond, skills are game elements, explicit in the RAW. As they are game elements, persuasion and intimidation are specific-enough to be covered by PHB 7 (specific beats general.) You might then say that they are not specific-enough for you. So far, no one has shown a way to give either view the higher ground from RAW.In broad brushstrokes, everyone regularly permits game elements to override PHB 185. That's normal and required: the game couldn't function as game without that. In every game session you run, players won't be able to decide some things for their characters (e.g. limits) and in many of them some game element will override or make their decision for them (e.g spells, features.) Supposing PHB 185 to constitute a rule, and supposing that the rule plays out as some have it to exclude the possibility of uncertainty, any game element that is specific-enough can excuse itself from worrying about that. Whatever the order of operations, it can excuse itself from that order and apply itself in whatever way it needs to, to function. It can break rules and form an exception to how the rest of the game works. Perhaps there is a way to show from RAW how persuasion and intimidation fall short? I don't know what that way is at present.And - to your point - I believe that highlights deficiencies in PHB 175 as a game rule. It's a big deal that it justifies more ink invested in it. What does that ink need to cover? Is there really never a time when something about an ability or how it is or can be used overrides it?</blockquote>

Verification