• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’d go so far as to say it’s not just the DM’s prerogative to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks.

    The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.

      OK, which part is?

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Since you asked:

        • Rolling damage against the floor on a miss
        • The intimidate check granting a +2 to hit as a free action
        • Using Mage Hand to manipulate items that are worn/held by a creature

        The damage against the floor is a minor thing, and smashing up the place as a consequence of fighting there is a reasonable bit of extra flavour. I’m not against it.

        A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?

        Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. Telekinesis, which is much stronger than Mage Hand, is one such spell which grants the wearer a save. Then you have things like Catapult, Daylight, or Fireball’s ignition effect, from which held or carried items are flatly immune. Personally I’d consider that grounds to extend that same restriction to Mage Hand.