Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7603242" data-attributes="member: 4937">I agree.&nbsp; It's more reasonable to site familiars or animal companion as an extension of the PC, in that they are in some sense even within the fiction joined together.&nbsp;&nbsp; That might make for some sort of exception.But when you talk about a line in a background feature that says, &quot;You can get an audience with a noble&quot;, it's no more reasonable to assume that on account of that line every noble is an extension of the PC than it would be that if a PC had some skill at carpentry to say that every board in the campaign is an extension of the PC.&nbsp; All it is saying is that all other things being equal, it's easy for a PC to get an audience with an NPC noble.&nbsp;&nbsp; It doesn't necessarily mean that you can trivially get an audience with the Lord of Dee, who hasn't received a visitor in 400 years, or that you'll have safe conduct into the lair of an Ultralithid as a diner rather than a dish, or that if you greatly offended the noble last time that he's still equally willing to see you.&nbsp;&nbsp; There could still be examples of &quot;nobles&quot; that don't fit with the concept, or where access is restricted for valid reasons.&nbsp; It certainly doesn't mean that you can propose actions for the NPC the way that you can for your PC.&nbsp;&nbsp; It only means something like, &quot;If any noble could seek an audience with this noble a reasonable chance of success, then you can as well.&quot;If all nobles were extensions of the PC, then you could always propose there actions.&nbsp; Instead, you still can only propose your own actions, you just have reasonable assurance that the answer to the proposition about your PC, &quot;I seek an audience with Baron Overhill&quot;, that the answer is &quot;Yes, you get your goal.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; It's really no different than in say D&amp;D 3.X having +14 on a skill check where the DC is always 15.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7603242, member: 4937"] I agree. It's more reasonable to site familiars or animal companion as an extension of the PC, in that they are in some sense even within the fiction joined together. That might make for some sort of exception. But when you talk about a line in a background feature that says, "You can get an audience with a noble", it's no more reasonable to assume that on account of that line every noble is an extension of the PC than it would be that if a PC had some skill at carpentry to say that every board in the campaign is an extension of the PC. All it is saying is that all other things being equal, it's easy for a PC to get an audience with an NPC noble. It doesn't necessarily mean that you can trivially get an audience with the Lord of Dee, who hasn't received a visitor in 400 years, or that you'll have safe conduct into the lair of an Ultralithid as a diner rather than a dish, or that if you greatly offended the noble last time that he's still equally willing to see you. There could still be examples of "nobles" that don't fit with the concept, or where access is restricted for valid reasons. It certainly doesn't mean that you can propose actions for the NPC the way that you can for your PC. It only means something like, "If any noble could seek an audience with this noble a reasonable chance of success, then you can as well." If all nobles were extensions of the PC, then you could always propose there actions. Instead, you still can only propose your own actions, you just have reasonable assurance that the answer to the proposition about your PC, "I seek an audience with Baron Overhill", that the answer is "Yes, you get your goal." It's really no different than in say D&D 3.X having +14 on a skill check where the DC is always 15. [/QUOTE]

Verification