|
2 years ago ::
May 22, 2011 - 11:12AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2004
|
As both a writer and a DM, I would count it as an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Just because you get to shove an Intimidate check into a place where Diplomacy would normally be used doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Who is you direct superior? If this is your approach to LFR, I would like to express my concern to your superior that you may not be appropriate for the position you hold.
-SYB
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 22, 2011 - 11:48AM
#12
|
|
|
As both a writer and a DM, I would count it as an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Just because you get to shove an Intimidate check into a place where Diplomacy would normally be used doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
So ... would you not allow people with the Underdark Climber feat use their acrobatics instead of athletics to climb, or reduce a character's initiative if they use the wary fighter feat?
Specific overrides general and if a power specifically says a character can use an intimidate instead of diplomacy, it should be allowed.
I think the reason so many people have a problem with your statement is that DMs are supposed to be neutral when it comes to game rules - if a person is following the rules (and not trying to push the boundaries of a gray area) - it should be allowed.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 22, 2011 - 2:09PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Who is you direct superior? If this is your approach to LFR, I would like to express my concern to your superior that you may not be appropriate for the position you hold.
Easy, easy. Let's not turn this into a personal thing. If you want to debate a rules interpretation given by another poster, please just stick to debating the rules interpretation and not going after the person who offered it.
One of the things we try to avoid doing in the campaign is making specific game rulings within the context of adventures. (I will confess to having done this myself, almost certainly inappropriately, in ADCP2-1. I put in a ruling about teleporting PCs into the air for falling damage; the Rules Compendium version of forced teleportation seems to have made this a valid tactic since it specifically provides for a saving throw under those circumstances, but in either case it is a core rules question and therefore something that as a writer I should have left for the DM to rule on. That particular tactic just happens to really chap my hide, which isn't much of an excuse, but there you go.)
In any event, if a writer turned in an adventure to me that looked like it was forcing a particular rules interpretation in an area that's already covered by the core rules, I would remove that text during final editing. (Note that there is a difference between forcing a rules interpretation on the DM vs. simply providing an accurate restatement of a core rule for ease of reference during play.) I can't speak for them, but I feel very comfortable that any of the other Global Admins would do the same.
I think all in all we have done a pretty good job over the course of LFR in avoiding situations where adventures invent their own game mechanics for situations that are already well-specified in the core rules (at least to the extent that anything is well-specified in the core rules; this being D&D, it is kind of the point that we make this stuff up as we go along).
Talk to you later --
Sean
----
M. Sean Molley | sean [at] basementsoftware [dot] com
LFR Global Administrator
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 22, 2011 - 2:56PM
#14
|
|
|
As both a writer and a DM, I would count it as an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Just because you get to shove an Intimidate check into a place where Diplomacy would normally be used doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Yeah, you're nerfing a power such that it aughten even exist. Way to go.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 22, 2011 - 10:11PM
#15
|
|
|
This skill power lets you make an intimidate check in place of a diplomacy check, which by my understanding should result in the success or failure effects of diplomacy, not intimidate.
I know this would generally go in the rules Q&A forum, but I also wanted the insight of those involved in writing/running the adventures.
I was considering a half-orc character with a personality like that of Animal from the muppets, using this skill power and potentially comboing with the Steely Persuasion utility to be able to contribute to social skill challenges in a helpful and fun way.
Sounds great! There are a couple of us "charistmatic orcs" (some full, some half) out here.
We should start the "Electric Mayhem" adventuring company.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 23, 2011 - 1:42AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
Personally, I hope we don't have a whole lot of "automatic failure" things anyways.
Note that in most cases the auto-failure of Intimidate is still depending on how you use the skill. Most SCs assume a certain way in which PCs would use the Initmidate (i.e. bullying), while there are a few more subtle ways in which you can use it.
A DM can deviate from the 'auto-failure' if the situations makes sense.
Anyway, IMO using Intimidate in place of Diplomacy using a power counts as a Diplomacy check. You bring a (valid) point across using a less-subtle method than good etiquette.
It's the difference between:
-'But dear sir, please consider the poor lady's lack of funds.'
and:
-'Look, here fancypants. She ain't got the money, 'kay?'
Sure, the noble may frown at your brutish manners, but you make a valid point, and he conciders it as such.
Gomez
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 23, 2011 - 8:31AM
#17
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
There's still a big difference between an automatic failure... and a skill not working.
It's not that uncommon to get to a scene in a skill challenge and the DM outline some possibilities, and a PC goes "Can I use -this skill I'm actually good at- to -do something that might work-?"
Sometimes it's a good idea, and you might pick a DC and let it work. Sometimes you just say no. Very rarely should you go "You can try it" then say, even if they beat the hard DC, that they've made the situation _worse_.
Yet, I've seen that happen to Intimidate several times and I'm not sure if I've seen any other skill in the same boat. Just seems like a bad idea.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 23, 2011 - 8:33AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
There's still a big difference between an automatic failure... and a skill not working.
This. While I don't think my philosophy as an author and editor should affect a power (the original question), I can assure you that if you see a skill that is an automatic failure in a Netheril adventure (rather than simply not working), there will be a really, really good reason for it, although I may not list that reason in the adventure.
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 23, 2011 - 8:49AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
I can assure you that if you see a skill that is an automatic failure in a Netheril adventure (rather than simply not working), there will be a really, really good reason for it, although I may not list that reason in the adventure.
If there's a skill that is an automatic failure, it is the responsibility of the author to list that reason in the adventure.
Preferably, right at the point where the skill is listed as an automatic failure. 
Otherwise . . .
Player: "I use Nature!"
DM: "You earn an automatic failure."
Player: "Why?!?!?!?  "
DM: "I don't know. The adventure just says that Nature counts as an automatic failure, but it does not list the reason."
Player: 
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 23, 2011 - 8:51AM
#20
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Something like,
"If the PCs failed the prior Insight check to believe Liar McBetrayYou, and use Heal on Monster McKillYouNow, they earn an automatic failure as the monster tears into them."
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
