Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8481998" data-attributes="member: 71699">It may do - but I do not believe we need to resolve our dispute in this regard - because of PHB 6. Opening a door is typically easy - the meaning is automatic or certain once you consider the text overall - but a DM might say there is some challenge that requires a check.Thus, even if for the sake of argument we adopt your view of PHB 174, and our player determines something about how their character will think, act, or talk, their DM can still in that case explain the challenge and consequences, and call for a check. What the DM would need to step outside the text to do, would be to force the outcome upon their character without consideration to 185, unless it is a set limit or s>g exception.I didn't think you would take issue with it. The conclusion that my theory adjusts is whether (what I have called) 'prior-certainty' can act to prevent a DM calling for a check? In fact, it naturally makes sense that the DM should only call for a check if they have decided that there is some challenge that introduces uncertainty. That answers the question for 174. Crossing an empty room is on the same footing as PHB 185 fiat: both may be normally certain albeit a DM can establish that there is a challenge introducing uncertainty.A DM could also call for a check because something is a subject to randomisation somehow, but we must assume that is not available here (or if it is, that is informationally hidden from the rest of the system.) In a sense, I believe that is what your argument really objects to. It reasonably enough asserts that player determining how their character thinks, acts, and talks, is not subject to randomisation (or at least, not at the DM's whim while working within the text.) That endorses that there should only be a check if a DM decides a challenge is involved.</blockquote>

Verification