Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8481300" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Hang on, I thought you said the player decides how their character reacts to the intimidation in your games. Now you’re saying the roll has a binary result - the NPC succeeds at intimidating the PC or fails to do so. How do you square that with the player getting to decide how their character reacts?I remember the exchange you’re referring to, but [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] didn’t quote 3e in that exchange. Someone else quoted the 3e PHB to demonstrate that, in 3e, it was explicitly the case that social skill checks couldn’t cause PCs to do something the player doesn’t want their character to do. That doesn’t mean that source is where [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] is getting the idea that actions made to force a character to decide something out of the player’s control don’t have an uncertain outcome in 5e. In fact, I would wager [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] wasn’t even aware of the 3e quote in question, since they haven’t played or run 3e in a long time.Furthermore, the 3e quote in question wouldn’t even make sense in the context of 5e, where ability checks are part of the action resolution process rather than actions in and of themselves. It made sense in 3e, where skill checks were things you could just do.And no one is arguing that there is.It also isn’t even close to our reading, which again, doesn’t treat ability checks as discrete actions, but as a part of the process of resolving actions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8481300, member: 6779196"] Hang on, I thought you said the player decides how their character reacts to the intimidation in your games. Now you’re saying the roll has a binary result - the NPC succeeds at intimidating the PC or fails to do so. How do you square that with the player getting to decide how their character reacts? I remember the exchange you’re referring to, but [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] didn’t quote 3e in that exchange. Someone else quoted the 3e PHB to demonstrate that, in 3e, it was explicitly the case that social skill checks couldn’t cause PCs to do something the player doesn’t want their character to do. That doesn’t mean that source is where [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] is getting the idea that actions made to force a character to decide something out of the player’s control don’t have an uncertain outcome in 5e. In fact, I would wager [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] wasn’t even aware of the 3e quote in question, since they haven’t played or run 3e in a long time. Furthermore, the 3e quote in question wouldn’t even make sense in the context of 5e, where ability checks are part of the action resolution process rather than actions in and of themselves. It made sense in 3e, where skill checks were [I]things[/I] you could just [I]do[/I]. And no one is arguing that there is. It also isn’t even close to our reading, which again, doesn’t treat ability checks as discrete actions, but as a part of the process of resolving actions. [/QUOTE]

Verification