D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Indeed. It's one of 5e's biggest failings.

I disagree. I think 5e does well to embrace the inherent asymmetry of RPGs.

The rules don't cover it, which means technically a PC can shoot frickin' laser beams out its eyes until the DM rules against it.

That’s just not how it works in 5e. It’s an exceptions-based system.

Of course. What you don't know is what that reaction will be, and that's what makes it uncertain.

Correct. Player decides is a different mechanic than die decides.

I think it's a poor use of the word "uncertain" in the rules is what's sticking me here.

Alright. You got my meaning and I don’t care to argue with you about my usage of the word “uncertain.” Just take it as a shorthand for “could succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes” when I say it.

 

[Lanefan]

Tradition, mostly. I think the justification is that a persuasive person isn’t necessarily also a good liar and vice versa. But down that path lies the madness that was search and spot, hide and move silently, climb, jump, and swim, freaking use rope, etc.

That's not all madness. Hide and move silently are very different things. Swimming is also very different (in my view anyway) as most of the time it's something a character would learn - or not - while growing up, long before its adventuring career got going, and IMO one's swimming ability should be determined during the backgrounds phase of char-gen. (ditto for riding, and for boating in many situations)

But use rope - yeah, that's getting into madness territory.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's not how any edition has ever worked. I mean, go read Long Sword in any edition. There's nothing that specifically says it does not detonate a nuclear explosion on every hit. That doesn't mean that it does. Not in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e. The same goes for social skills. The fact that it doesn't explicitly say, "This is not for use on PCs" is not proof that it does. Especially when literally every part of the ability check and social interaction sections of the PHB and DMG deal with PCs using those skills on NPCs. Not one instance in any book of the reverse.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't matter. If a decision can be made by the player that is either yes or no, it is not uncertain according to the rules. You only roll if no decision can be made(outcome uncertain).

 

[Lanefan]

That's not how any edition has ever worked. I mean, go read Long Sword in any edition. There's nothing that specifically says it does not detonate a nuclear explosion on every hit. That doesn't mean that it does. Not in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e. The same goes for social skills. The fact that it doesn't explicitly say, "This is not for use on PCs" is not proof that it does. Especially when literally every part of the ability check and social interaction sections of the PHB deal with PCs using those skills on NPCs. Not one instance in any book of the reverse.

There's rules covering longswords but there's no rules covering bazookas until either a DM rules against them or a player tries to give one to his character.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet a PC can use those same mechanics to force an NPC to react a certain way.

No. The PC cannot. You only roll if the outcome is in doubt. If the NPC just wouldn't do something, it doesn't matter if the PC has +1034 to his persuasion skill. He's still never going to get to roll, because the outcome is not uncertain.

 

[Maxperson]

There's rules covering longswords but there's no rules covering bazookas until either a DM rules against them or a player tries to give one to his character.

Doesn't matter if there's no rules on bazookas. Since there's no explicit rule against bazookas, then it's allowed anyway under your argument. So longswords can be bazookas, nuclear weapons, allow PCs to fly, and more. There's a whole, whole lot that isn't explicitly denied to longswords.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why in the nine hells aren't these combined into being the same thing?

I did combine them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ability checks aren’t something the player “uses” at their leisure, and players cannot “use social skill mechanics” to force an NPC to act however they want. At the core of D&D 5th edition is the basic pattern of play wherein the DM describes the environment, the players describe what their characters do, and the DM describes the results. If necessary, the DM may call for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to determine the results if they are uncertain what the results will be. So no, a player can’t force an NPC to do whatever they want, because it is always within the DM’s power to determine how the NPC reacts and describe the results without calling for a roll. And even if the DM is uncertain, they set the terms for what the results of success and failure on the check (or attack or save) are.

I theory. But frankly, the DM just deciding that the PC cannot use their social skills they invested character creation resources in is not great. The GM gets to decide what happens, but it would not be cool if when you declare that you want to attack an enemy, the GM just declared that the enemy dodges without letting you to roll. The general assumption is the the players can use their PCs skills to get the things they want.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In any case, I don't think that the basic principle that the player gets to decide what their character thinks or does is at all convincing argument for the social skills not being able to affect the PCs. The PC cannot literally do anything the player want. The rules are absolutely full of things that limit the characters. Social skills doing that is not any different from combat rules or movement rules or spells limiting them.

Now, the reason to not do it is that it is not fun to many people. But I think that is merely a style of play not an inherent limitation that exists in the rules. The GM simply don't call social skill checks against the PCs because they don't think it would not be fun. But they could.

Also, I think some people actually like rules that influence character attitudes. I really don't, but it is not super unusual. So one could easily play in a way where such skill rolls are used. If the NPC skill roll indicates that your character is scared of the NPC or really likes them, then you just have to incorporate that in your roleplay.

And yeah, whilst I generally like the rules work pretty symmetrically to PCs and NPCs, this certainly is an area where I am perfectly willing to make an exception. Some people might feel differently though.