D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

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.

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.

What @Charlaquin said on both counts.

 

[iserith]

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.

Yes - this! Players can't "use social skills" on a monster. I think a lot of people don't understand this. Only the DM may call for a roll and that's only when there's uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If there's certainty as to the outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure, there's no roll.

If the orc tries to intimidate the PC, there is no uncertainty because the player decides, so no roll. If the PC tries to intimidate the orc, there may be uncertainty if the DM decides there is. If there's also a meaningful consequence for failure - again, the DM decides - then the DM calls for an ability check. At no time can the player say "I'm making an Intimidation check on this orc." That's not how the game works!

 

[iserith]

In the section on ability checks, it gives three cases of what can happen if you try to intimidate somebody.

There's still no uncertainty when it comes to a monster intimidating a PC though, as it pertains to the DM's adjudication process. (Not to be confused with uncertainty about how the player will choose to have the character respond as Lanefan introduced to the discussion.)

My contention is that game mechanics are a general and powerful exception to player determination over how their character thinks, acts and talks. Thus, for me this (game balance) is the more compelling line to take, but I think you don't intend to make an argument that they shouldn't be played this way because they would be imbalanced. Or at least, that you don't intend to abandon your other argument.

There's no reason to resolve the balance argument, seeing as I think that even were it resolved and you were comfortable with balance, you would still resort to your 'determining' argument. Does that sound right? Or are you prepared to concede on the determining argument if only the mechanical balance is shown to be good?

A spell like charm person is a specific exception to the rules on the player determining what the character does. An ability check does not sit in the same space. There's really nothing else to say here. House rules can be implemented if this is not satisfying to the group.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

For those who would prefer rules to Coerce players, there's a few ways to do it using or modifying rules from the DMG.

In any case, the PC affected by a Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation attempt gains a temporary Trait/Flaw ( which can be leveraged for Inspiration) for as long as the coercer is within sight, always keeping in my the PC's personality. The PC will not put themselves in harms way or do something opposed to their deepest beliefs, as if affected by a Command or Charm Person spells. ie:

• I'm deeply scare of X
• I'm convinced X is acting in my best interest.

etc

- Use the Honor rules:
The PC has a Honor score like any other stat. They make an Honor saving throw against the Passive Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception of the monster (10+chosen skill). If the monster leverage a trait/flaw/ideal/bond of the PC or targets a creature already frightened, the DC increases by +5.

- Use Scores:
The monster makes an Intimidation/Deception/Persuasion, the DC is equal to a PC's specific stat + their PB.
Deception vs Intelligence score
Intimidation vs Wisdom score
Persuasion vs Charisma score

- Modify the Loyalty rules
Acumen Score
A PC's acumen is measured on a numerical scale from 0 to 20. The PC's maximum acumen score is equal to the highest Charisma score among all adventurers in the party, and its starting acumen score is half that number. If the highest Charisma score changes—perhaps a character dies or leaves the group-adjust the PC's loyalty score accordingly.

A PC's acumen score increases by 1d4 if other party members succeed at coercing an NPC tp achieve a goal tied to its bond. A PC 's acumen score can never be raised above its maximum.

When other party coerce the PC in a manner that runs counter to the PC's alignment or bond, reduce the PC's score by 1d4. Reduce the PC's acumen score by 2d4 if the character is greatly misled, intimidated, or convinced by another creature (such as being affected by a dragon fear, or being bribed to go against their party)

An PC with an acumen score of 10 or higher risks life and limb to help fellow party members due to sheer conviction and certainty. If the NPC's acumen score is between 1 and 10, its conviction is tenuous. A PC whose acumen drops to 0 no longer acts in the party's best interests. A PC whose acumen score drops to 0 gains a new flaw, bond, ideal or trait related to the attempt of the coercer. An acumen score can never drop below 0.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In the section on ability checks, it gives three cases of what can happen if you try to intimidate somebody.

In the section on Fighters, there are three examples of Fighters (human in plate, dwarf in chain, gladiator fighting for sport). But those aren't rules.

And, anyway, in the section you are referring to, the text is clearly speaking to a player, and the examples strongly imply NPC targets. (At least, to my reading.). So even if we wanted to think of them as actual rules, it still wouldn't apply to the case of an orc trying to intimidate a PC.

My contention is that game mechanics are a general and powerful exception to player determination over how their character thinks, acts and talks. Thus, for me this (game balance) is the more compelling line to take, but I think you don't intend to make an argument that they shouldn't be played this way because they would be imbalanced. Or at least, that you don't intend to abandon your other argument.

There's no reason to resolve the balance argument, seeing as I think that even were it resolved and you were comfortable with balance, you would still resort to your 'determining' argument. Does that sound right? Or are you prepared to concede on the determining argument if only the mechanical balance is shown to be good?

Oh, maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I'm not talking about balance, or how the game might be designed, or should be designed, or what would be symmetric or sensible. I'm entirely talking about how the game is currently written.

Because I would agree to the proposition that the game would certainly work, and even have a certain amount of symmetry that some would find pleasing, if it contained specific rules...or at least as specific as charm person...for how NPCs and PCs could "use" social skills on each other.

Are we talking past each other?

 

[Bill Zebub]

One good approach for a DM would be to telegraph that this champion is intimidating. Perhaps the first time the characters see the champion, they are barking at some other NPCs who essentially back away, turn tail, say "whatever you want" in a wobbly voice, etc. Then they understand what the champion is like before interreacting, which they can use to better inform how they wish to roleplay.

Yes to this. If the goal is to provide a roleplaying cue then...just...provide a roleplaying cue. Amirite?

Alternately, if you genuinely want the players to be intimidated, and not just respond to a cue and play along, then those other NPCs could be mind flayers or something. The players will think, "Wait...what? This orc tells mind flayers to jump and they ask how high? We'd better step carefully here."

Why roll dice and pretend when you can just live the experience?

 

[Maxperson]

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 DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

 

[HammerMan]

Interesting. A bit like the player determining how they want their PC to think, act, or speak. But house ruled with more dice rolls and the player setting the DC where they think appropriate.

Do you ever have to intervene to tell the player their DC is inappropriate?

very very rarely, and I would say almost (maybe all) because they set too high. I have one friend who thinks almost everything is DC 25+

in general playing with the group i do is SUPER laid back and easy (okay not really cause sometimes we all go off the rails into crazy tinfoil conspiracy land for some reason).

 

[HammerMan]

Holy hell. So "easy" is something the average person is going to fail 50% of the time.

yes becuse in my mind if it was something most people could do 50% of the time heroes should do it no problem.

 

[HammerMan]

I let him know that if I don't get my 2gp price, I'm going to break his left pinky. Then if I still don't have my price, I'm going to break his right pinky. I also let him know that if he screams when either finger is broken, I'll cut out his tongue. Then I gesture to my comrade Gorak the barbarian to move to the man's right, and to my buddy Chomag the dwarven cleric to move to his left. As they do so I pull out my dagger and start cleaning a fingernail.

that would get at least 2 people I know to red card right there to stop the game... maybe 3. that is WAY too graphic.