D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lyxen]

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.

The game is extremely consistent here, and it works well, once more the players only describe what they do and the DM allows the technical use of the skill when he deems it appropriate: "Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills."

This does not mean that the DM will allow you a check (he might use a passive, he might decide on automatic success or failure, etc.), but as you say, a good DM will make sure that you have fun by not frustrating you about ignoring yout skills.

That being said, a DM can also decide to totally ignore them when the circumstances warrant it, for reasons that only he knows, and a player should have the good grace to recognise it. It's all about balance as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yeah, I mean I don’t agree with the statement that “the general assumption is the the players can use their PCs skills to get the things they want,” because I don’t view ability (skill) checks as player abilities but as DM tools for resolving actions (ones that the smart play is to try and avoid the need to use). But a DM arbitrarily deciding the outcome of an action when narratively success and failure ought to be possible and the stakes are meaningful is definitely bad form.

 

[clearstream]

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.

That is a reasonable position. I'd like to put forth a line of argument for consideration.

A lacuna is that it leaves the inclusion of skills like Intimidate (on orc war chief and champion, for example) poorly explained. To suppose it is flavour text is weak. Skills are called out in the MM as something monsters have and can use, and we see examples of skills such as athletics on champion, and can have no doubt that a champion foe can use athletics to grapple and shove PCs. Intimidate - also on champion - is rules text.

Rejecting a theory that there can be rules text that is empty of meaning, leaves us forced to infer that social skills on monsters are there to be used on one another. I can't find any rules or guidelines that support that, other than the shadow cast by the positive assertion that players decide what their characters do. There are exceptions to that positive assertion. For example, players don't get to decide when their character falls to zero hit points and goes down. They don't get to decide when they are tripped by a wolf and fall prone. They can't decide that they can jump 20 feet without a check if they only have strength of 10. In fact, it is a general exception to player decision-making, that where the game mechanics yield an outcome then players don't get to decide on that outcome.

That might be adduced in an argument that says that Intimidate is a game mechanic that can cause an outcome, and when it does players don't get to decide. Just as they do not decide when dissonant whispers forces their character to move as far as it can away from the caster. Game mechanics clearly and generally decide for players what happens to their characters and what their characters do in precisely the circumstances governed by those mechanics.

Seeing as that is in direct conflict with the justification you are relying on, it seems to me that we are forced to choose. Taking a pragmatic view, we don't know the meaning of game mechanics if players simply decide what their outcome is going to be. Therefore it seems to me that we should prefer the view that where there is a mechanic that decides what a character does, then that is an intended exception to the general rule you are relying on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

You're twisting the meaning of "uncertain outcome" here. It refers simply to the DM's adjudication, not quantum mechanics (or other unpredictable complex systems). Since the outcome is whatever the player decides, it's not uncertain.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

It's a great question/valid point, but as with some of your other preferred interpretations of 5e, the way you think RPGs should work just ain't how 5e was written.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are exceptions to that positive assertion. For example, players don't get to decide when their character falls to zero hit points and goes down. They don't get to decide when they are tripped by a wolf and fall prone. They can't decide that they can jump 20 feet without a check if they only have strength of 10. In fact, it is a general exception to player decision-making, that where the game mechanics yield an outcome then players don't get to decide on that outcome.

I think you are conflating decisions about what happens to a character with what a character decides to do. That is, physical states vs. action declarations. All your examples aren't decisions taken by a person: you don't decide to fall prone, you are knocked prone. You don't decide to miss the 20' jump, it just happens.

But all of those things that happen to your character come with consequences that are covered by rules. If you fall, you take damage. If you're prone, attacks against you have advantage and it takes half your movement to stand up. If you are at zero hit points, you are incapacitated and you make death saving throws. Those things are all in the rules.

Now, it's also true that the character doesn't decide whether or not to be intimidated by an orc, but what we're really talking about is what actions the character may take in the aftermath of being intimidated. And there are no rules, anywhere, that govern what action declarations are valid in that case.* So to tell a player "you are in the Intimidated state" is either meaningless or is making up non-existent rules.

*And the general case of this is how players should roleplay in various circumstances. There is lots of guidance and advice, but zero rules dictating how to roleplay.

 

[clearstream]

You're twisting the meaning of "uncertain outcome" here. It refers simply to the DM's adjudication, not quantum mechanics (or other unpredictable complex systems). Since the outcome is whatever the player decides, it's not uncertain.

When a character attacks a foe, it is uncertain whether they will hit. The player doesn't get to decide that they hit. The outcome is uncertain because there is a mechanic that governs it that includes uncertainty. When a foe attacks back, the player doesn't get to decide that they do not get hit.

 

[clearstream]

I think you are conflating decisions about what happens to a character with what a character decides to do. That is, physical states vs. action declarations. All your examples aren't decisions taken by a person: you don't decide to fall prone, you are knocked prone. You don't decide to miss the 20' jump, it just happens.

But all of those things that happen to your character come with consequences that are covered by rules. If you fall, you take damage. If you're prone, attacks against you have advantage and it takes half your movement to stand up. If you are at zero hit points, you are incapacitated and you make death saving throws. Those things are all in the rules.

Now, it's also true that the character doesn't decide whether or not to be intimidated by an orc, but what we're really talking about is what actions the character may take in the aftermath of being intimidated. And there are no rules, anywhere, that govern what action declarations are valid in that case. So to tell a player "you are in the Intimidated state" is either meaningless or is making up non-existent rules.

Yes, I think that is the line I would take as well, but essentially we'd be arguing that because the outcome seems incompletely specified, the mechanic is in a special class. The obvious way to resist that is to suggest that the outcome is sufficiently well specified.

Say an NPC casts Charm Person on a character? If the roll fails then the character is charmed and must treat the NPC as a "friendly acquaintance." What does that mean? I will argue that it is sufficiently well-specified. The player can choose what their character does, just so long as they remain within whatever the group agrees counts as friendly acquaintance. And that falls in the same category as choosing what their character does within the bounds of any other mechanic: no special class exists.

It's all imaginary. A character takes 10 damage just as much as it is made to treat an NPC as a friendly acquaintance.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, I think that is the line I would take as well, but essentially we'd be arguing that because the outcome seems incompletely specified, the mechanic is in a special class. The obvious way to resist that is to suggest that the outcome is sufficiently well specified.

Say an NPC casts Charm Person on a character? If the roll fails then the character is charmed and must treat the NPC as a "friendly acquaintance." What does that mean? I will argue that it is sufficiently well-specified. The player can choose what their character does, just so long as they remain within whatever the group agrees counts as friendly acquaintance. And that falls in the same category as choosing what their character does within the bounds of any other mechanic: no special class exists.

It's all imaginary. A character takes 10 damage just as much as it is made to treat an NPC as a friendly acquaintance.

Again, though, the rules for Charm Person...the change in game state the results from the spell's use...are at least specified, if subject to interpretation. (And even then, you picked one of the most ambiguous and confusing examples in the game.)

Nowhere do the rules specify what happens to the game state if you try to Intimidate somebody.

I'll also add that considering how mild charm spells are, constraining behavior based on Cha skills would be making Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception essentially equal to 1st level spells. It's the same argument I have against using Insight as a lie detector.

 

[Lyxen]

Nowhere do the rules specify what happens to the game state if you try to Intimidate somebody.

Actually they do, if you look at pg 185 of the PH and at pg 244 of the DMG, you can technically change the attitude of an NPC. Note that this is optional and conditioned at the very least by the DMG granting you a check.