Skills used by players on other players.

iserith · Dec 10, 2018

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION]: In D&D 5e, one does not "use skills" on NPCs or PCs. They perform tasks. The outcomes of those tasks may be uncertain and carry with it a meaningful consequence of failure. If they do, then the DM calls for an ability check to resolve it. If the task does not have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM does not call for an ability check. These are not house rules.

Since a player determines how a character thinks and acts, the outcome of a task made to influence how the character thinks is not uncertain. Therefore, there is no ability check. These are also not house rules.

iserith · Dec 10, 2018

Blue said:
So, outside DMs doing things that the rules don't allow and the table definitely shouldn't allow, let me try an example that could happen at my table.

Setting: AL table, not all players are there all the time, some vary by week, and factions with secret agendas is a known thing. Alice's rogue is a member of the Zhents, which have criminal ties...

Here's how that might play out at my table:

DM: Alice, your rogue recognizes the Zhentish tattoos on the gang leader as they flee.
Alice: Oh, I need to make sure they get away. My rogue says "We shouldn't follow then, they're probably just hired thugs."
DM: Alice, with the tattoos you're sure that's not true. Can you make a deception check for your rogue?
Alice: 9, plus 2 for CHR and 3 for proficiency since I'm trained ...14
DM: Bob, your cleric with the Observant feat has a higher passive insight. He catches some hint that the rogue isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, so help her Helm.
DM (again): What does everyone do?
Charlene: My barbarian chases the thugs anyhow. Her blood is up and she's still spoiling for a fight.

(That's especially true since Observant has nothing to do with Insight.)

Beowulf · Dec 10, 2018

iserith said:
Here's how that might play out at my table:

DM: Alice, your rogue recognizes the Zhentish tattoos on the gang leader as they flee.
Alice: Oh, I need to make sure they get away. My rogue says "We shouldn't follow then, they're probably just hired thugs."
DM: Alice, with the tattoos you're sure that's not true. Can you make a deception check for your rogue?
Alice: 9, plus 2 for CHR and 3 for proficiency since I'm trained ...14
DM: Bob, your cleric with the Observant feat has a higher passive insight. He catches some hint that the rogue isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, so help her Helm.
DM (again): What does everyone do?
Charlene: My barbarian chases the thugs anyhow. Her blood is up and she's still spoiling for a fight.

(That's especially true since Observant has nothing to do with Insight.)

I would probably add that if one of the players asked for additional information (“Do I notice anything that would cause me to doubt the rogue?”) I might call for a roll, but I wouldn’t hold anybody to the result.

But other than the Insight/Observant goof, I also wouldn’t object to the GM just offering information based on scores.

The rogue didnt “use” Deception “on” the cleric. She lied. The GM used game mechanics to resolve uncertainty.

Blue · Dec 10, 2018

iserith said:
[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION]: In D&D 5e, one does not "use skills" on NPCs or PCs. They perform tasks.

There is an entire chapter in the PHB called "Using Ability Scores". I believe the terminology of "using" a ability check, or colloquially a skill check, is well understood and unassailable as a term to describe invoking them.

iserith said:
The outcomes of those tasks may be uncertain and carry with it a meaningful consequence of failure. If they do, then the DM calls for an ability check to resolve it. If the task does not have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM does not call for an ability check. These are not house rules.

Since a player determines how a character thinks and acts, the outcome of a task made to influence how the character thinks is not uncertain. Therefore, there is no ability check. These are also not house rules.

Thank you, this is a great communication - it shows me why you don't think there is a need for a check. I would like to put forth that there are uncertainties outside the DM telling the player what the character thinks or acts.

The case I want to bring up is that the check can be made to give the player information their character should observer by being part of the world. So that the player then has information on what their character knows in-game and can decide what their character things or acts based on that.

Say the party is split and doesn't know where each other are. The party also knows there are ninjas hiding in the shadows who have attacked the party before.

Player A has their character hiding and sneaking along the edges of a courtyard.

DM switches to another player on the battlements above the dimly lit courtyard. Based on their passive perception, they could find out that there is someone in the courtyard. Or that there are two someone's in the courtyard (different stealth score). Or that one of them is their friend.

If the character saw no sneaking figures, they might continue on their way. If they saw one they might cast a single target spell on it. If they saw two they might case a area of effect spell. If they saw two but knew one was their friend they might go back to a single target spell. It's all up to the player.

Here we have one player needing to make a stealth check (it applies to the ninjas as well), and another getting a description of the world as there character would know it in order so that the player can then make decisions on what their character does.

I hope this shows that there's a case where the DM is providing information based on what the character experiences simply by existing in the world ("The DM describes the environment [PHB pg 6 'How to Play']), and not to dictate what the character is thinking or doing.

iserith · Dec 10, 2018

Blue said:
There is an entire chapter in the PHB called "Using Ability Scores". I believe the terminology of "using" a ability check, or colloquially a skill check, is well understood and unassailable as a term to describe invoking them.

"Use skill" is reminiscent of D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e where players asked or decided to make "skill checks." This is not supported in the D&D 5e rules. There should be no expectation that a player can "use a skill" in D&D 5e.

Blue said:
Thank you, this is a great communication - it shows me why you don't think there is a need for a check.

You know, I've posted that same post at least a half dozen times in this thread including my very first post in the discussion.

Blue said:
I would like to put forth that there are uncertainties outside the DM telling the player what the character thinks or acts.

The case I want to bring up is that the check can be made to give the player information their character should observer by being part of the world. So that the player then has information on what their character knows in-game and can decide what their character things or acts based on that.

Say the party is split and doesn't know where each other are. The party also knows there are ninjas hiding in the shadows who have attacked the party before.

Player A has their character hiding and sneaking along the edges of a courtyard.

DM switches to another player on the battlements above the dimly lit courtyard. Based on their passive perception, they could find out that there is someone in the courtyard. Or that there are two someone's in the courtyard (different stealth score). Or that one of them is their friend.

If the character saw no sneaking figures, they might continue on their way. If they saw one they might cast a single target spell on it. If they saw two they might case a area of effect spell. If they saw two but knew one was their friend they might go back to a single target spell. It's all up to the player.

Here we have one player needing to make a stealth check (it applies to the ninjas as well), and another getting a description of the world as there character would know it in order so that the player can then make decisions on what their character does.

I hope this shows that there's a case where the DM is providing information based on what the character experiences simply by existing in the world ("The DM describes the environment [PHB pg 6 'How to Play']), and not to dictate what the character is thinking or doing.

The situation under discussion is one of a rogue trying to convince a barbarian to go help some villagers (the task) and then the players getting into an argument because the DM called for ability check to resolve what was not an uncertain result.

It's not uncertain because the rules makes perfectly clear that the outcome of such a task is up to the barbarian's player. Therefore, there is no ability check.

Blue · Dec 10, 2018

iserith said:
The situation under discussion is one of a rogue trying to convince a barbarian to go help some villagers (the task) and then the players getting into an argument because the DM called for ability check to resolve what was not an uncertain result.

It's not uncertain because the rules makes perfectly clear that the outcome of such a task is up to the barbarian's player. Therefore, there is no ability check.

Yes, that was the OP. In my very first post I put forth a different scenario, trying to find out information from people when separating out what was an important distinction for me. I see that the @ mention you did is no longer under that thread, which I should have noticed. However, you are referencing my posts there, especially about calling it "house rules". So I think we can safely say that there's more then one scenario we're talking about here.

I notice that you sidestepped the last scenario I put forth - where one character's skill roll is used to properly describe the environment (a DM job) based on the passive perception of another character. Since they are not to control the character's thoughts or actions, does that mean they are okay at your table, or is there something else I'm missing?

pming · Dec 10, 2018

Hiya!

Sorry to jump in here, but it's just a quick answer/comment.

Blue said:
Let me ask this from the other side. One that doesn't affect character agency.

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

A DM shouldn't ask for any check when it's Player vs. Player. The DM should look Player B square in the eye and say "How do I know? He's YOUR character. What do YOU think?".

If the player insisted on getting some sort of 'roll', (and I *have* had this come up once or twice over the decades), I then ask something along the line of "Ok, so you want NPC's and PC's using skills like Persuasion and Diplomacy to be able to force you to go along with what they want, or make you purchase an item for a high price? I mean, I'm cool with that if you are...". It is at this point that the Player says "Uh, well...er...no. I guess not. Never mind". This response happened EVERY SINGLE TIME. Without fail.

Players that tend to ask for this sort of thing are ones who, geeze, how to put this nicely...uh... lets say "tend towards wanting consequences for their actions taken out of their hands". Not sure why that is, but it happens. When confronted with just how that would affect them later on in the game they realize how foolish it is (the idea, not the Player).

Ok, back to the thread!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Ovinomancer · Dec 11, 2018

Blue said:
Yes, that was the OP. In my very first post I put forth a different scenario, trying to find out information from people when separating out what was an important distinction for me. I see that the @ mention you did is no longer under that thread, which I should have noticed. However, you are referencing my posts there, especially about calling it "house rules". So I think we can safely say that there's more then one scenario we're talking about here.

I notice that you sidestepped the last scenario I put forth - where one character's skill roll is used to properly describe the environment (a DM job) based on the passive perception of another character. Since they are not to control the character's thoughts or actions, does that mean they are okay at your table, or is there something else I'm missing?

It's the player's job to describe thier actions. A player's actions do not, through some alchemy, become the environment and subject to DM control. What you are doing is trying to describe a player's declared actions in a way you prefer.

iserith · Dec 11, 2018

Blue said:
Yes, that was the OP. In my very first post I put forth a different scenario, trying to find out information from people when separating out what was an important distinction for me. I see that the @ mention you did is no longer under that thread, which I should have noticed. However, you are referencing my posts there, especially about calling it "house rules". So I think we can safely say that there's more then one scenario we're talking about here.

I notice that you sidestepped the last scenario I put forth - where one character's skill roll is used to properly describe the environment (a DM job) based on the passive perception of another character. Since they are not to control the character's thoughts or actions, does that mean they are okay at your table, or is there something else I'm missing?

I honestly couldn't make much sense of the scenario, so I'll defer to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] on the response as it sounds appropriate to what I could take away from your example.

Also, it would be great if you'd stop accusing me of sidestepping or trolling or any of the other things you've rather rudely accused me of in this thread. It makes me want to stop responding to you at all. I've answered your questions to the best of my ability, or others with whom I agree have done so, and have not at any time attempted to troll you. Thanks.

Blue · Dec 11, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
It's the player's job to describe thier actions. A player's actions do not, through some alchemy, become the environment and subject to DM control. What you are doing is trying to describe a player's declared actions in a way you prefer.

Actually, the players actions do little except become the environment. Did you hit with that arrow? Adjust the environment. Did you track the fleeing goblins and follow them? Great, you're now in a different part of the environment.

And YES, it is ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of the DM to take the described actions and describe them into the mechanics of the game. "You wish to identify the plant? Okay, please roll your Intelligence (Nature)."

Which is a great example of the first part, because based on that I can now describe the environment to a more detailed level for that character by giving them information base on the results of the skill roll.

In other words, you have properly identified two crucial things that a DM does, and correctly ascribed them to what I described.

In no way does that control a character, it just gives the player the information to make a call what they want to do with their character.