Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 9613581" data-attributes="member: 6921763">Perhaps by telling the DM, &quot;My PC would like to tell the guard about X (perhaps, for example, his background as a soldier) in order to get the guard to do Y (perhaps, for example, to get the guard to let them pass without having to sign &quot;the book&quot; or pay the full toll or whatever).&nbsp; Etc.&nbsp; Engaging with the 5e play loop allows a player to have their character try most anything.Sure, having some specific mechanics can also serve as a prompt to have your character do/try certain things.Fair enough.&nbsp; When a PC is attempting to do something in the fiction, it is smart play to lean on their strong points in case the DM calls for an ability check which, by definition, comes with a meaningful consequence for failure.&nbsp; I guess I would wonder why CON can be used for a Persuasion check in the fiction?&nbsp; I'm sure there is a way much like one might use STR for Intimidation.&nbsp; Along those lines, where a barbarian or fighter might want to flex in an attempt get an NPC to back down, the DM can call for a STR(Intimidation) ability check.&nbsp; It's less prescriptive that way.&nbsp; A bonus given to the fighter when interacting with soldiers would be the Advantage mechanic in 5e... if a roll is required at all.Of course.&nbsp; A 5e DM should not be stingy when it comes to ability checks.&nbsp; Be flexible with adjudication if it makes sense in the fiction - and there's plenty of ways to get different approaches to make sense in the fiction.&nbsp; In such a way, the player knows beforehand that said bonuses are possible depending on the scenario.But, I get it, some people want the level of crunch spelled out for them.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that, either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 9613581, member: 6921763"] Perhaps by telling the DM, "My PC would like to tell the guard about X (perhaps, for example, his background as a soldier) in order to get the guard to do Y (perhaps, for example, to get the guard to let them pass without having to sign "the book" or pay the full toll or whatever). Etc. Engaging with the 5e play loop allows a player to have their character try most anything. Sure, having some specific mechanics can also serve as a prompt to have your character do/try certain things. Fair enough. When a PC is attempting to do something in the fiction, it is smart play to lean on their strong points in case the DM calls for an ability check which, by definition, comes with a meaningful consequence for failure. I guess I would wonder why CON can be used for a Persuasion check in the fiction? I'm sure there is a way much like one might use STR for Intimidation. Along those lines, where a barbarian or fighter might want to flex in an attempt get an NPC to back down, the DM can call for a STR(Intimidation) ability check. It's less prescriptive that way. A bonus given to the fighter when interacting with soldiers would be the Advantage mechanic in 5e... if a roll is required at all. Of course. A 5e DM should not be stingy when it comes to ability checks. Be flexible with adjudication if it makes sense in the fiction - and there's plenty of ways to get different approaches to make sense in the fiction. In such a way, the player knows beforehand that said bonuses are possible depending on the scenario. But, I get it, some people want the level of crunch spelled out for them. Nothing wrong with that, either. [/QUOTE]

Verification