D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

I don’t disagree that PCs are intended to interact with NPCs. This fact does not demonstrate that NPCs’ social skills are meant to be used in interaction with PCs.


Right, I’m not trying to prove NPCs’ skills aren’t meant to be used against PCs - trying to prove a negative is generally a pretty fruitless task. I’m arguing that the existence of social skills on NPCs, per se, is not evidence that they are meant to be used against PCs.

Where to me the fact that these social skills can be used against NPCs strongly implies (almost to the point of outright saying) they can be used against PCs as well, either by NPCs or by other PCs.

Given this, and given that pretty much nobody wants them to be useable against PCs, my position is that they should not be useable against NPCs either; and therefore have no further reason to exist.

 

[Lanefan]

Indeed, nothing in the rules prohibit it. However, nothing in the rules indicates that it is what is meant to be done either, and in an exceptions-based rule system (which D&D is), explicit instructions are required to constitute a rule.

If nothing in the rules prohibit something then it's fair game in 5e. Same as 1e in that regard: for the most part the philosophy is you can do it unless something specifically tells you you cannot. Though I don't agree at all with where the rest of his arguments seem to be going, @HammerMan has at least got this right.

Contrast this with 3e, which leaned much closer to you cannot do it unless something specifically tells you you can.

 

[Lanefan]

Epistemology is not rules of debate, it’s the basic underpinning of logic. I can have a reasoned discussion with someone who isn’t familiar with the rules of debate (heck, I’m not terribly familiar with the rules of debate). I can’t have a reasoned discussion with someone who doesn’t accept the fundamental principles of logic.

Egads - you're doomed in here, then.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If nothing in the rules prohibit something then it's fair game in 5e. Same as 1e in that regard: for the most part the philosophy is you can do it unless something specifically tells you you cannot. Though I don't agree at all with where the rest of his arguments seem to be going, @HammerMan has at least got this right.

Contrast this with 3e, which leaned much closer to you cannot do it unless something specifically tells you you can.

Do you see any difference between:
a) Something that is not explicitly forbidden and therefore is within the rules
b) Something that is explicitly within the rules

 

[Lanefan]

Since I believe that the outcome of an NPC trying to socially influence a PC is not uncertain, so not calling for an ability check in that situation is using it the same way PCs do.

How it is not uncertain? Do you know how the PC will react before the NPC even starts talking? If no, then the outcome is uncertain. (and if yes, you have very predictable players! )

That the player is the one who gets to unilaterally decide how things turn out doesn't make the outcome any less uncertain before that decision is made.

 

[Lanefan]

Still not in line with the rules for ability checks. There is no DC and players don't set the DC - the DM does. Fine if you want to use it that way, but not in supported by the rules.

Does the presence or absence of a specified DC matter if one is using the roll simply as a relative-to-norm determinant?

Put another way, the actual DC is irrelevant if what you're really after is that a roll of 18 is relatively better than the norm (10 or 11) and is much better than a roll of 4.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you see any difference between:
a) Something that is not explicitly forbidden and therefore is within the rules
b) Something that is explicitly within the rules

In both 1e and 5e I see no difference here. Anything is allowed unless a rule* prohibits it.

* - which can be a RAW rule, a house rule, a DM ruling, or whatever: you're allowed to do it until something tells you to stop.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where to me the fact that these social skills can be used against NPCs strongly implies (almost to the point of outright saying) they can be used against PCs as well, either by NPCs or by other PCs.

Given this, and given that pretty much nobody wants them to be useable against PCs, my position is that they should not be useable against NPCs either; and therefore have no further reason to exist.

I don’t share your opinion that rules for PCs and rules for NPCs should be perfectly symmetrical, nor are they so in 5e.

If nothing in the rules prohibit something then it's fair game in 5e. Same as 1e in that regard: for the most part the philosophy is you can do it unless something specifically tells you you cannot.

That’s just silly. The rules don’t specifically tell you your PC can’t shoot laser beams out of their eyes, but they can’t unless they have a specific ability that allows them to do so. That’s how exceptions-based rules systems (which 5e is) work.

How it is not uncertain? Do you know how the PC will react before the NPC even starts talking? If no, then the outcome is uncertain. (and if yes, you have very predictable players! )

I know for certain that the character will react exactly as the player decides they do. I don’t have to know what that reaction will be to know that I don’t need to roll dice to determine the outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

Does the presence or absence of a specified DC matter if one is using the roll simply as a relative-to-norm determinant?

The point @iserith was making in that post was that using rolls simply as a relative-to-norm determinant isn’t supported in the 5e rules.

 

[Lanefan]

The difference between a monster trying to intimidate a PC and a monster trying to recall lore about some arcane subject should be obvious in my view: The attempt to intimidate doesn't have an uncertain outcome because the player gets to say what happens in the face of the intimidation.

Sure it does. When the monster tries to intimidate the PC the outcome is uncertain until the player decides how her PC is going to react. Once the player has decided, the outcome is locked in; just the same as once the die is rolled, the outcome is locked in.

The difference isn't the certainty or uncertainty, nor is it the point at which one becomes the other. The difference lies only in how that final certain outcome is achieved: player decision or die roll.