D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

I would say “all text in the rulebook is rules text unless otherwise stated” is a more sound assumption than “some text in the rule book is not rules, but it is not explicitly indicated as such”.

I tend to agree, however 5e is written in a general mess such that it's sometimes rather hard to disentangle whether or not something is a rule or a suggestion or just discussion.

In the case of the blurb under Roleplaying, it's not very clear that this is a rule. For one, it certainly doesn't cover all kinds of roleplaying that are possible in RPGs, much less 5e. It's a decently general statement. Second, there's no place where roleplaying is called out as present or not present in any given situation -- ie, the game doesn't state when roleplaying is expected to be engaged. Clearly, I'm not roleplaying when I'm creating a character, yet this is still part of playing the game. So, we have that ambiguity. I don't disagree that in the topic at hand roleplaying is likely involved, but, and this is critical, if we're criticizing a logical argument we have to note that this is assumption, not fact. We are assuming roleplaying is controlling in some way here because it's not said otherwise. This is what's smuggled in via assumptions and prior experience with RPGs.

So, two things. First of all, I disagree that Charm Person is not clear that it’s an exception to the player’s ability to decide what their character does. It explicitly says “If [the target creature] fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance.” That’s an explicit statement of what the affected creature does, which indeed contradicts the general rule that players decide what their characters do.

Second, I leave it up to the player what it means for their character to “regard [the caster of charm person] as a friendly acquaintance,” the same way it is left up to me to decide that for NPCs.

The second statement counteracts the first, though. I can very easily decide that being a friendly acquaintance in this situation is violently and repeatedly ramming a blade through the caster while hurling vile obscenities about their ancestry. And frothing at the mouth as if in a rage. This is me deciding what friendly acquaintance is here. If the definition of a thing is left undefined in this way, then there's no teeth at all to this effect -- I can, quite literally, decide to do whatever I want.

Further, using Persuasion successfully has a listed effect in the PHB that is as binding as the Charm Person example. I think that there's some other smuggled assumptions in, primarily around the idea that "magic" is somehow special, that the spell has a clear effect while the ability check does not, but there's about equal weight of words and clarity of effect in both. The DMG social encounters rules also indicates that a successful Persuasion can improve the attitude of the PC -- something never assigned and so having about as much impact as the Charm Person spell.

Taken directly, there's no real evidence for either being more or less functional than the other. So, even if we assume Roleplaying is in effect, the difference between a successful CHA(persuasion) check and a failed save vs Charm Person are equally binding on the following play. Which is to say, not very much by the rules. It's the smuggled assumptions that tip the scale, and the impact of the social contract at the table. If a GM used NPC CHA checks on the players and then vetoed action declarations that didn't agree with the GM's idea of how the PC should react, this seems exactly like the result for a Charm Person spell. There's a good reason I do NOT allow NPC CHA checks against PCs (or PCs vs PCs) and very much shy away from use of Charm spells vs PCs in my play -- they step hard on the one place that 5e actually carves out agency for players. I dislike stepping on that, so I don't, and am explicit about it. I don't think the rules particularly support this, or particularly oppose it. It's just good play for me. Others can differ. The rules don't much stop them, either. The beauty of 5e is really in how they avoided making any real stands on how the game plays in large part, while hiding the strong stands they made in other areas.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And this is why the play loop has the DM only call for rolls when success is possible (and failure is possible and the stakes are meaningful).

This isn't 100% correct. This is how the Middle Path defines asking for rolls. The other two options both allow for or allow for not calling for rolls in situations where the above is not true.

 

[HammerMan]

Forget to use it or forget to hand them out? At my table, we give inspiration at the end of the session: one by the DM, and one by the players who choose as a group who to give it to.

both, everytime we tried we did PCs could give them to each other and the DM could, and we would just forget.

 

[Charlaquin]

And even that “more structure” doesn’t give you unambiguous, step-by-step instructions to follow. I consider them to be guidelines or advice, not rules.

This seems like a dubious position to take, given that our argument for the outcome of social actions taken against PCs not being uncertain relies on assuming that text describing what roleplaying is constitutes a general rule. I think the more sound assumption is that all text in the rule books is rules text, unless otherwise stated.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are, in the DMG. NPCs start out as hostile, indifferent, or friendly towards the PCs, and there are guidelines for how successful social actions can change an NPC’s attitude to another category.

I just re-read the whole section on "Resolving Interactions". The word 'might', to describe how the mechanics are (or 'might be') applied, is used 15 times.

Again, there's no point arguing the definition of 'rules' but, come on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree that it’s not RAI for the DM to declare hits and misses a without calling for attack rolls in the midst of combat. But that’s because, while two or more parties are actively fighting each other, the outcome of an attempt by one party to incapacitate or kill another by hitting it with their weapon is pretty much always uncertain. It could succeed, could fail, and has meaningful stakes.

This assumption of uncertainty is still just an assumption. It doesn't always hold true. Take a monster unable to be harmed by non-magical weapons being attacked by a character that know this and is still wielding a non-magical weapon and not taking any other steps to overcome the immunity. The GM doesn't need to resolve uncertainty, here -- the result is fixed because there's no chance of success for the goal of harming the monster. Granted, this is an extreme example, but one crafted to show a clear case. A given GM can have any number of reasons why a given attack could auto-succeed or auto-fail.

 

[clearstream]

This seems like a dubious position to take, given that our argument for the outcome of social actions taken against PCs not being uncertain relies on assuming that text describing what roleplaying is constitutes a general rule. I think the more sound assumption is that all text in the rule books is rules text, unless otherwise stated.

I hadn't thought of it that way before, however I agree.

 

[HammerMan]

Then, as I described in that post have a huge logical inconsistency in your thought process.

nope just people not understanding

Evil, per your definition, RAW Scenario #1:. NPC casts Suggestion on Player #1. Player makes and fails a Wisdom save. NPC says "You look tired, perhaps you should skip this guard duty, and go take a nap." Player #1 walks away and takes a nap.

yes forcing someone to do something, by magically forcing your will over theres = evil

Not evil, per your definition, RAW Scenario #2: NPC makes a Persuasion roll per the DM of 23, where DM sets the DC at 20. Per RAW, Player #1 has no ability to make a savings throw, or contested check. NPC says "You look tired, perhaps you should skip this guard duty, and go take a nap." Player #1 walks away, and considers taking a nap, maybe even doing so.

that isn't how that works in my game (and I don't think in any).... the 23 means they were persuasive but it is still up to the player how they react to the persuasive argument. Skills are not mind control.

Or, if you don't like that, then swap out the scenario where the NPC and PC are haggling over the value of some magic item.

okay... normally we don't have skills used for that, but you could. TBH we normally go out of game for breaking up items then have our characters aggree.

In scenario #1, the player has the ability to defend. In scenario #2, no such ability exists. And both have the same negative result for the player.

except I don't know anyone who is suggesting (lol pun) that the out come of both are the same...

 

[HammerMan]

The more natural reading given the framing of the Monster Manual overall, is that the skills are intended to be used on the player-characters. That's true even if the skills are also intended to be used on other monsters. The jarring reading is that certain skills - some not others - are intended only to be used on other monsters.

not only does 1 sub set of skills not act like other skills but it isn't called out.

Death saves (something monsters don't get by default) calls this out, why not social skills

 

[iserith]

And even that “more structure” doesn’t give you unambiguous, step-by-step instructions to follow. I consider them to be guidelines or advice, not rules.

I would say they are rules that are optional. It's a "dial" as the designers referred to it during the playtest. If you want more structure, turn the dial up and use these rules. If you want less structure, then turn the dial to the base rules. The DM ultimately gets to decide which rules come into play when the players declare actions. These may or may not come into play. When discussing whether something is actually a rule, anything in the rules book is a rule in my view.