D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Yes, I think I agree with this (that is, if I'm reading it correctly) and it's actually pretty similar to the Parlay I quoted from Stonetop at the beginning.

But I guess my question would be while dice rolls are necessary at all. Why wouldn't the players just say, "Here's how we could be persuaded."?

For the same reason I suppose the person you are buying a used car from doesn't say - "In truth, I would part from it for half the asking"?

 

[Charlaquin]

except your argument is my way of letting the orc roll intimadate effects players ability to spend inspiration

My argument is that one of the benefits of my approach to when to call for rolls (which is the base principle from which I derive my approach to resolving social actions targeting PCs, and is therefore tangentially related to the topic at hand) has the benefit of making it easier for players to identify when a roll being called for has meaningful stakes (it always does), and therefore easier to judge when it’s worthwhile to spend resources, like inspiration, to shore up their roll.

 

[HammerMan]

Dude. You laughed at a post not intended to be funny(an abuse of the laugh button and against forum rules)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, if you feel I have broken a rule by all means go to the board admins.

and then said, "I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill..." If you don't like it, don't say it.

I love how you chop off the part where I say was the intended use of the monster manual to change the meaning of the sentence

 

[clearstream]

For the record, none of my posts have addressed the proposed house rule except to recommend to one poster that they consider it if they insist on using social mechanics to drive player behavior. My reasoning there is that the house rule provides an incentive whereas the way they were doing it provides a penalty. The carrot may work better than the stick. The rest of my posts are in the context of D&D 5e rules.

Oh right, I misunderstood. Apologies.

 

[HammerMan]

If the social skills rules were intended to be used against PCs, there would be one example or statement somewhere in the PHB or DMG. Just ONE. There isn't, because they are to be used against NPCs only.

The DM can certainly make them work on PCs, but that's not supported by the rules anywhere and every implication is that it isn't intended to happen.

so becuse the example doesn't call out PC or NPC how do you know who is who?

 

[Bill Zebub]

For the same reason I suppose the person you are buying a used car from doesn't say - "In truth, I would part from it for half the asking"?

Oh, I see what you're getting at.

Hmm, I'll need to digest that. There's some circular logic rattling through me poor noggin' at the moment.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is what I think @Charlaquin and @iserith have been getting at, and why the whole thing about using dice to resolve uncertainty point is so important, and not pedantic/semantic. Since players control their characters' action declarations, there's no uncertainty, and thus no roll is needed.

(One might argue that "being intimidated" isn't an action declaration, but, as I pointed out, if being intimidated doesn't restrict action declarations then it's just a roleplaying cue, and if it's just a roleplaying cue does it really need mechanical reinforcement? That smells to me like not trusting other players to roleplay.)

Interestingly, the opposition to their stance seems to fall into two camps with similar but opposite arguments:
@Lanefan seems to agree that there's no uncertainty if the PC's player claims there's no uncertainty, but that the same is true of NPCs, with the DM being the "player". (And I sort of agree with him: it is up to the DM to decide if there's uncertainty in those cases.)
The other camp says that there is uncertainty, that just like players can't declare their weapon hits, they can't declare they aren't intimidated.

Yes, this. To be clear, I think I agree with @Lanefan as well, for the most part. It’s the DM’s role to describe the environment and determine the outcomes of the players’ actions, calling for a roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome. But ultimately it is the DM who determines what is or isn’t certain, so yes, the DM can always decide that a PC’s social action succeeds or fails without need of a roll. I simply tend to find uncertainty in the outcomes of PCs’ social actions more often than not, whereas Lanefan sounds like he tends never to find uncertainty there.

As for whether or not the outcome of an NPC’s social action is certain or uncertain, in my evaluation it’s always certain. Because the general rule (to which there are specific exceptions such as spells) is that the player decides what their character thinks and does. So, I when I describe a social action an NPC takes against a PC, since no specific exception is written in the rules for ability checks to the general rule that the player decides what their character thinks and does, it is certain that the player can react however they want to that action. If the player is uncertain how their own character would react, they are of course welcome to use any method they wish to resolve that. Heck, if a player told me they weren’t sure how their character would react and asked me to make an ability check for the NPC, I would.

Now, all this is not to say my approach is the only valid one. Many groups have in place some manner of table rule which does constitute specific exceptions to the general rule that the player decides what their character thinks and does under certain circumstances. Such as when the player’s out-of-character knowledge is deemed to be influencing their decision of what to do, or when another character (perhaps an NPC) takes a social action targeting them. That’s perfectly fine, play the game however you like.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The rules are just vague enough here to allow for more than one interpretation. This is intentional.

Even if you watch Jeremy Crawford talk about this; he says that the rules are meant for PC to NPC actions, but always uses a qualifier like “most of the time” or “normally” or similar.

The intention is there but they won’t commit to it because they want 5e to be open to interpretation.

 

[Voadam]

No. You've missed the bolded and underlined. The PHB is speaking to the player(not the DM) about PCs using skills on NPCs. Further examples would include the PC trying to persuade a dragon not to eat him, talk an ogre into attacking some orcs, and so on.

No it is saying the DM can call for a check when you try to influence "someone" which on its face is not limited to NPCs.

Page 179:
"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk."

It seems to completely be consistent with a PC trying to persuade another PC and the DM then might call for a check.

If the social skills rules were intended to be used against PCs, there would be one example or statement somewhere in the PHB or DMG. Just ONE. There isn't, because they are to be used against NPCs only.

The lack of examples is some evidence, but not very strong that someone in this context means someone except for PCs. I do not consider it particularly persuasive or compelling evidence of a rules restriction.

It seems a stronger argument that if they consciously intended the descriptions of influencing someone to mean not PCs they would have said NPCs.

Given the general rulings not rules philosophy of 5e design I feel the lack of explicit restriction means it is open to interpretation and different ways of doing it at different tables.

 

[HammerMan]

The intention is there but they won’t commit to it because they want 5e to be open to interpretation.

and all of the argument comes down to this.

we all read the same rules, we interpreted them different.