Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8482779" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Only other way around it is somehow a problem? So if we word the thing as a PC taking an action to resist intimidation they can be affected, but if we word it as the NPC taking an action to intimidate the PC they cannot? Even if the mechanics involved would literally be the exact same?Explain to me what you understand 'limiting how the PC acts' ro me? To me it is pretty damn clear that being physically prevented from speaking limits how the PC can talk!Because you said:And then 'see above' regarding intimidation. So you seem to think intimidation (and presumably other social ability checks) can do that.It's not. It simply says which parts of the book contain most rules and it says some game elements may break general rules. Exact division of general and specific isn't made.Then perhaps you should have led with that instead of trying to rules lawyer the thing?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8482779, member: 7025508"] Only other way around it is somehow a problem? So if we word the thing as a PC taking an action to resist intimidation they can be affected, but if we word it as the NPC taking an action to intimidate the PC they cannot? Even if the mechanics involved would literally be the exact same? Explain to me what you understand 'limiting how the PC acts' ro me? To me it is pretty damn clear that being physically prevented from speaking limits how the PC can talk! Because you said: And then 'see above' regarding intimidation. So you seem to think intimidation (and presumably other social ability checks) can do that. It's not. It simply says which parts of the book contain most rules and it says some game elements may break general rules. Exact division of general and specific isn't made. Then perhaps you should have led with that instead of trying to rules lawyer the thing? [/QUOTE]

Verification