D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

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.


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.

It sounds like you could be making an argument for specific beating general. The rule there is that the specific rule must contradict the general rule for the specific rule to apply. I do not see any contradiction here and these rules work hand in glove: A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player decides how the character responds (page 185). If the player is deciding, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus no roll (PHB 174).

What it looks like to me is that some folks play a certain way, perhaps having been influenced by other games, and they just assume that's how it works in the D&D 5e rules. It doesn't. This doesn't prevent them from playing as they wish, of course. What's interesting is that everyone seems to agree with the idea that playing how you want is just fine... but tell them it's not supported by the rules and show proof and suddenly it's a problem. What happened to playing how you want regardless of the rules being okay?

 

[Maxperson]

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

Nothing was changed by the chop. You started your sentence it the same way I did. If you were offended, then consider your words before you offend. You're "I'm sorry" was the same as mine.

 

[HammerMan]

Nothing was changed by the chop. You started your sentence it the same way I did. If you were offended, then consider your words before you offend. You're "I'm sorry" was the same as mine.

no it wasn't mine was "I'm sorry I don't think X was the intended way of doing things" yours was "Sorry your games aren't that deep"

 

[Maxperson]

It sounds like you could be making an argument for specific beating general. The rule there is that the specific rule must contradict the general rule for the specific rule to apply. I do not see any contradiction here and these rules work hand in glove: A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player decides how the character responds (page 185). If the player is deciding, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus no roll (PHB 174).

What it looks like to me is that some folks play a certain way, perhaps having been influenced by other games, and they just assume that's how it works in the D&D 5e rules. It doesn't. This doesn't prevent them from playing as they wish, of course. What's interesting is that everyone seems to agree with the idea that playing how you want is just fine... but tell them it's not supported by the rules and show proof and suddenly it's a problem. What happened to playing how you want regardless of the rules being okay?

Yes. For specific beats general to apply, the contradiction has to be explicit. There's no explicit use on a PC anywhere in the game. To view those rules as written for use on PCs requires you to not only completely ignore every ounce of context in the books, but also invent an explicit contradiction that doesn't exist.

 

[Maxperson]

no it wasn't mine was "I'm sorry I don't think X was the intended way of doing things" yours was "Sorry your games aren't that deep"

Er, no. Here is it again since you seem to be having trouble with your own posts.

I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill on another NPC instead of plot pointing it is more likely then the stats are there to inform how X they are (x being the skill)

 

[HammerMan]

It sounds like you could be making an argument for specific beating general. The rule there is that the specific rule must contradict the general rule for the specific rule to apply. I do not see any contradiction here and these rules work hand in glove: A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player decides how the character responds (page 185). If the player is deciding, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus no roll (PHB 174).

so Okay that is how you read it... others read it different, we are both reading and applying the same rules, we just read them diffrently.

What it looks like to me is that some folks play a certain way, perhaps having been influenced by other games, and they just assume that's how it works in the D&D 5e rules.

just like YOU are influenced by every game YOU have ever played, and every book YOU have ever read...

It doesn't.

objection point not in evidence.

This doesn't prevent them from playing as they wish, of course.

right back at you

What's interesting is that everyone seems to agree with the idea that playing how you want is just fine... but tell them it's not supported by the rules and show proof and suddenly it's a problem.

funny you are as guilty as anyone here. WE SHOWED YOU OUR SUPPORTED RULES... you don't like them, you interpret them diffrent, but you keep pretending yours is the right way

What happened to playing how you want regardless of the rules being okay?

then stop pretending your way is the one true way

 

[HammerMan]

Er, no. Here is it again since you seem to be having trouble with your own posts.

and how is that the same


I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill on another NPC instead of plot pointing it is more likely then the stats are there to inform how X they are (x being the skill)

is not an insult, not direct, no indirect.

I'm sorry your game isn't that deep

that is a direct insult.

 

[HammerMan]

Yes. For specific beats general to apply, the contradiction has to be explicit.

for you maybe... not for everyone

There's no explicit use on a PC anywhere in the game.

except where there are.

To view those rules as written for use on PCs requires you to not only completely ignore every ounce of context in the books, but also invent an explicit contradiction that doesn't exist.

like the context where they assgin stats and skills to every creature in a book some of whitch have no need to be there if they have no use.

 

[Charlaquin]

so Okay that is how you read it... others read it different, we are both reading and applying the same rules, we just read them diffrently.

Right, but @iserith’s interpretation is supported with a lot of direct quotes that, taken together, are pretty unambiguous.

just like YOU are influenced by every game YOU have ever played, and every book YOU have ever read...

@iserith very specifically reads RPG rules on their own terms, setting aside assumptions based on other games.

objection point not in evidence.

Yes it… is?

funny you are as guilty as anyone here. WE SHOWED YOU OUR SUPPORTED RULES... you don't like them, you interpret them diffrent, but you keep pretending yours is the right way

So far I’be seen a few vague allusions to monsters having stats and the assumption that those stats are “most likely meant for use against PCs,” and one set of quotes from @Voadam that @iserith quite thoroughly demonstrated don’t contradict the general rules.

then stop pretending your way is the one true way

He literally in the very post you quoted said feel free to play the game any way you wish. You acknowledged it with a “right back at you.” There is no one true wayism going on. You might want to consider why someone citing the rules in their explanation of why they run the game the way they do and disclaiming it with a “ feel free to run the game any way you wish” comes across to you as one true wayism.

 

[Charlaquin]

for you maybe... not for everyone

That’s not how exceptions-based rules work. If there’s no explicit exception, the general rule applies. That’s the only way exceptions-based rules can function.

except where there are.

Citation needed.

like the context where they assgin stats and skills to every creature in a book some of whitch have no need to be there if they have no use.

Indeed there would be no need to list them if they had no use. Since using them against NPCs is a use, this is not evidence that they must be usable against PCs.