Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8481972" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Agreed.Agreed.I’m not sure how you’re reaching the bolded conclusion from the quoted text. This text seems to me to convey essentially the same information as the previous quote - don’t call for a roll if the action is devoid of conflict.Agreed. So the conclusion I would draw from this is, If an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a specific way, the player determines if it succeeds in doing so.Sure. I don’t think Sage Advice really matters in interpreting RAW, but this supports my argument, so I won’t look too closely into that gift horse’s mouth.I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide the exact quote here like you did for the others. “This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” Notably, the actual quote does distinguish between the general rules and game elements that break the general rules. The rules for skills are in section 2, which is noted as especially being where the general rules are found, and they are not racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, or monster abilities.Yes, which is why we are discussing what the rules support rather than what they allow, since here they allow the DM to do anything they want.The player doesn’t determine the means of resolution, the DM does. The player decides how their character thinks, acts, and talks, which means if an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a way contrary to the player’s decision, it is not uncertain and the text we have reviewed so far would not support them in calling for an ability check to resolve it.You call this an egregious example, but I don’t see anything going on here that conflicts with my reading of the rules. The player took an action - trying to sweet-talk the tea lady into letting them retain their biscuit privileges despite not sitting down. The DM determined that the outcome of this action is uncertain - the sweet talking might convince the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges, or it might not. Determining that there was uncertainty, and the characters are acting against each other’s goals, the DM called for a Charisma (Persuasion) vs. Charisma (Intimidation) contest. The player failed this contest, so they did not make progress towards their goal of getting the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges. Then the player got to decide what their character thought and did about this (either deciding to sit down in world 1, or deciding not to sit down in world 2). The DM here did not make any call that isn’t supported by the rules, as I understand them, though I would note that saying “you might feel somewhat intimidated” is kind of putting their thumb on the scale and I would consider it poor form.If you thought I would take issue with this example, I don’t think you are understanding my position.Yep, I agree 100% with that.</blockquote>

Verification