D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

I don’t even think NPCs are meant to use social skills differently than PCs do. My position is that ability checks are meant to be used, both by PCs and NPCs, when the outcome of the action the character takes is uncertain, and not used otherwise. Since I believe that the outcome of an NPC trying to socially influence a PC is uncertain, so not calling for an ability check in that situation is using it the same way PCs do.

and again, if no uncertainty exsists (the kobold or commoner trying to intimadate the 15th level barbarian, or the 1st level wizard trying to intimadate elminster) no roll needed... we use the rolls when we have someone that MIGHT be able to intimadate someone else...

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless you look at it as the CHA(intimidation) roll is used to resolve a task being performed by the NPC where the outcome, determined by the player running the PC the CHA(intimidation check) is directed toward, is unknown by the DM.

If the outcome is determined by the PC, the DM doesn’t need to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to determine the outcome. The player can simply tell the DM what the outcome is.

Then, the 24 has all the meaning the player of the PC chooses to give it.

Great, so the player can ask for the DM to make such a roll if they feel the need to.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok. So you are literally saying here that your interpretation of the rules is not based on logic. Why, then, would you object to me saying that your interpretation is less logically sound than mine, which is based on logic?

because you are using logic as an argument of correction. You believe that logic trumps all (wait I just realized, are you a vulcan?). I do not see how your argument from logic has any more or less weight then mine with common sense reading.

 

[Charlaquin]

and again, if no uncertainty exsists (the kobold or commoner trying to intimadate the 15th level barbarian, or the 1st level wizard trying to intimadate elminster) no roll needed... we use the rolls when we have someone that MIGHT be able to intimadate someone else...

Right. My position all along has been that uncertainty never exists when an NPC tries to socially influence a PC, because the rules state that the player decides what their character does, and so far no explicit exception to that general rule has been cited in the rules text describing social interactions or ability checks.

 

[HammerMan]

If the outcome is determined by the PC, the DM doesn’t need to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to determine the outcome. The player can simply tell the DM what the outcome is.

so what is the end result diffrence in my examples?

Great, so the player can ask for the DM to make such a roll if they feel the need to.

um, I have been told not by the rules, asking for that is a house rule and an illogacl reading of the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

because you are using logic as an argument of correction. You believe that logic trumps all (wait I just realized, are you a vulcan?).

I’m an INTP, if that counts

I do not see how your argument from logic has any more or less weight then mine with common sense reading.

It doesn’t. If you base your interpretation of the rules on something other than logic, knock yourself out. I’ve said since the beginning there is no invalid way to play the game. Do what brings you joy.

 

[HammerMan]

Right. My position all along has been that uncertainty never exists when an NPC tries to socially influence a PC,

and that is why no matter how much logic, no matter how many debate points you make, we disagree on something you can not prove... unless you can prove that there is never uncertainty (when plenty here have told you there is).

because the rules state that the player decides what their character does,

and again I dare you to find me an example of me not letting a player decide what the character does.

and so far no explicit exception to that general rule has been cited in the rules text describing social interactions or ability checks.

except we have and you ignore them becuse they don't fit the logic you want.

 

[Charlaquin]

so what is the end result diffrence in my examples?

From my understanding, you have been arguing for the DM to make a check for the NPC, and for the player to be expected to take the result of that check into account in deciding how their character responds.

um, I have been told not by the rules, asking for that is a house rule and an illogacl reading of the rules.

I mean, the player asking the DM to make a check to help them determine how their character would respond to an NPC’s social interaction isn’t supported by the rules as far as I can tell - any more than the player flipping a coin to decide is. That doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t do either of those things.

 

[HammerMan]

I’m an INTP, if that counts

I am an ENFJ so we have the N in common. Extraverted, Intuitive, Feeling, and Judging

It doesn’t. If you base your interpretation of the rules on something other than logic, knock yourself out. I’ve said since the beginning there is no invalid way to play the game. Do what brings you joy.

then what is the argument you are making? We read the rule diffrent, we see the game diffrent but for the most part we still play the same.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

except we have and you ignore them becuse they don't fit the logic you want.

For the love... if you have done so, then link to them. Or quote them. Or copy & paste them as a response.
We ALL can't possibly be missing ALL your rules quotes and page references annotated with your interpretation. So something else must be going on here, yes?