D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

Do you mean in the way champion has Athletics and Intimidation? Intimidation is the corresponding ability. Perhaps an example might help.

1. DM The champion makes an Athletics check to move your character against your wishes by 5 feet. Rolls... it succeeds. In the imaginary game-world, your character is now there instead of here.
2. DM The champion makes an Intimidation check to force your character to disclose the truth about Jo's illness. Rolls... it succeeds. In the imaginary game-world, the champion now knows that Jo is mortally ill.
3. DM The champion casts a charm spell from that magic locket its granny gave it. Saving throw is rolled... the spell takes effect. I the imaginary game-world, your character now knows that the champion is a friendly-acquaintance.

Only if we come into this with the assumption that some facts about the emergent fiction have special status, does the "player decides" argument take hold. It amounts to saying, the player decides about these facts, but not about those other facts for... reasons. The reasons might be good ones, but that isn't the argument I see you and @Charlaquin making.

<sarcasm>What RPG are you citing here?</sarcasm>

In 5e, there is no such thing as an Athletics check to move a character. There is a Shove action (look it up!) that can be declared, that uses the Strength attribute, with possible Athletics proficiency bonus, for resolution.

There is no corresponding "Intimidate" action. Anywhere.

(edit) Another example is the Rogue Inquisitive "Insighful Fighting" ability. There is no "Insight" ability in the game, but this rogue ability does (potentially) use Insight as part of resolution. That is, it uses Wisdom, and if you happen to be proficient in Insight you get the bonus.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This conflation of skills and abilities is another reason why I don't think the shorthand of players declaring skills ("I'll make an Investigation check...") rather than describing goal & approach and waiting to see if the DM calls for a roll is a good idea. It's so easy to forget that skills are not invokable abilities.

 

[Voadam]

Would you mind citing such a rule? From what I recall, the rules surrounding ability checks are generally framed around their use by PCs.

Use by PCs does not preclude use against another PC.

Examples of non-Charisma ability checks by PCs that by the descriptions presumably work on other PCs

Page 177

Sleight of Hand. Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery, such as planting something on someone else or concealing an object on your person, make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to determine whether you can lift a coin purse off another person or slip something out of another person's pocket.

Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

Page 178.

Other Intelligence Checks. The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Communicate with a creature without using words

Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.

Other Wisdom Checks. The DM might call for a Wisdom check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead

PCs count as creatures. Presumably the term "companion" is an example and not a limitation.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Use by PCs does not preclude use against another PC.

Examples of non-Charisma ability checks by PCs that by the descriptions presumably work on other PCs

Page 177

Sleight of Hand. Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery, such as planting something on someone else or concealing an object on your person, make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to determine whether you can lift a coin purse off another person or slip something out of another person's pocket.

Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

Page 178.

Other Intelligence Checks. The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Communicate with a creature without using words

Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.

Other Wisdom Checks. The DM might call for a Wisdom check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead

PCs count as creatures. Presumably the term "companion" is an example and not a limitation.

One of these things is not like the other: Wisdom(Medicine) is most often used with a check made against a static DC to see if you stabilize your ally. The rest are most often opposed checks for which there are no examples in any of the books for PC vs PC. Not saying you can't do it if everyone at the table is on board, but I am saying it is neither RAW nor RAI for a baseline 5e game with a cooperative party.

 

[Voadam]

Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

One of these things is not like the other: Wisdom(Medicine) is most often used with a check made against a static DC to see if you stabilize your ally. The rest are most often opposed checks for which there are no examples in any of the books for PC vs PC. Not saying you can't do it if everyone at the table is on board, but I am saying it is neither RAW nor RAI for a baseline 5e game with a cooperative party.

Yeah what kind of team player would ever slip away unnoticed from his allies.

 

[iserith]

This very neatly gets to a deeper design-philosophy question that might be worth looking at, which goes something like this:

If a mechanic is listed on the character sheet and thus is player-side, does - or should - that give the player control over when-how that mechanic is invoked?

Corollary question: should mechanics that are not under the player's control appear on the character sheet at all?

A character's combat stats and abilities are all listed on the character sheet and (with rare exceptions) the player has full control over when and how those mechanics are invoked.

Physical skills - athletics, climbing, etc. - are similar, in that their use is almost always invoked by player choice (even though that choice may be forced sometimes, it's still a choice in the end). Exploraiton skills - search, move silently, etc. - are also fully under the player's control as to when and how they are invoked.

Inspiration and other meta-currencies, horrible though they are, also fall into this player-controlled category.

And for all of the above, in all cases the success-fail result is quickly obvious: you missed your shot, you climbed out of the pit, you crept past the guard, etc.

But for things like social skills, if the player doesn't get to choose when and how to invoke them (i.e. call for a roll) and-or can't always tell what the results are if any, then why are they even shown on the character sheet? I ask this because if they're on the character sheet it's very easy for a player to assume they're invokable at the player's choice just like all the other player-side mechanics.

Another offender here is saving throws. Despite the game pushing these player-side even back in 1e days, I've always held that saving throw mechanics should be DM-side only. A player usually has no choice as to when or how this mechanic is invoked; the player just rolls the save when forced to by the game state, and the success-fail state isn't always immediately obvious in any case (though often it is).

Just want to point out that you have some erroneous assumptions here.

In D&D 5e, there is no ability check that is under a player's control, whether "physical," "exploration," or "social" (to use your distinctions). All actions pass through the DM who decides whether there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If both conditions are true, then the DM calls for an ability check. At no point can the player decide to make an ability check on their own. They can only describe what they want to do and the DM takes it from there.

And as I said before, a player asking to roll is a player who doesn't understand that this is not smart play, if success is their goal. The d20 is not their friend. Attempting wherever possible to remove uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure is a better strategy in this regard. The player won't always be able to do this because of the situation before them, but those that try will tend to roll less and get automatic success more, which makes them more successful over time. It also has the add-on effect of the players engaging more with the game world in meaningful ways.

 

[Voadam]

One of these things is not like the other: Wisdom(Medicine) is most often used with a check made against a static DC to see if you stabilize your ally. The rest are most often opposed checks for which there are no examples in any of the books for PC vs PC. Not saying you can't do it if everyone at the table is on board, but I am saying it is neither RAW nor RAI for a baseline 5e game with a cooperative party.

Most of them are not things you would commonly do against a fellow PC, but communicating without words and checking your buddy to make sure they have not been vamped seem within the normal course of play expectations for a non-adversarial party and I am not sure why you would think it is not RAW or RAI or where you think the rules as rules prohibit the others. The statement about players being in control of their own actions does not even apply to any of these.

Also opposed checks are a subset of ability checks (page 174) and it explicitly uses an example of two characters engaging in a contest.

CONTESTS
Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal-for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding. If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.

 

[iserith]

Most of them are not things you would commonly do against a fellow PC, but communicating without words and checking your buddy to make sure they have not been vamped seem within the normal course of play expectations for a non-adversarial party and I am not sure why you would think it is not RAW or RAI or where you think the rules as rules prohibit the others. The statement about players being in control of their own actions does not even apply to any of these.

Also opposed checks are a subset of ability checks (page 174) and it explicitly uses an example of two characters engaging in a contest.

CONTESTS
Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal-for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding. If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.

Again, only the DM can call for an ability check and then only when the declared action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. The first criteria is not met when it comes to a PC or monster trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade another PC since the target PC decides if they are deceived, intimidated, or persuaded. Thus, no ability check.

 

[Voadam]

Can someone point out the meaningful consequences part of the ability check rules?

I see the roll when it can fail quote on 174 under ability checks.

"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."

Which also explicitly talk about creatures and monsters making ability checks.

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

 

[iserith]

Can someone point out the meaningful consequences part of the ability check rules?

I see the roll when it can fail quote on 174 under ability checks.

"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."

Which also explicitly talk about creatures and monsters making ability checks.

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

The holiest of all rules texts - DMG page 237.