D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

How so? Perhaps you misunderstand my point, and I yours. That is to say, beating the DC on an ability check results in the DM granting you success in the goal that you defined for your PC while failing to beat the DC on an ability check results in the DM imposing the failure state. Hence, pass/fail. In other words, any nuance comes in the narrated result, not in the beating or not beating the DC.

okay, then outright NO! 100% no...
th problem is
the goal that you defined for your PC
this also needs to be something bothDM andPC AGREE is the out come...

I can't narrate my Religion check as a way to summon an avatar (But I may if the DM goes with it use religion to do a ritual to call said avatar...if it makes sense). No matter how many times I say "I want to use my Knowledge of Religion to remember the prayer to as for guidance" (and that sentence is a valid one) does NOT then if i make the check let my fighter trained in religion CAST guidance "Okay you remember, you say it perfectly, nothing happens" how ever if he fails the DC he doesn't even remember the prayer right.

so is there a question... yes "Does the fighter remember the prayer?" (the DM can choose to say yeah, or no, or make check to see)
if DM says roll DCXX, all that does is give the fighter the words to the prayer, not the spell casting feature for Orisons (wait that might be me thinking of older editions, maybe they are cantrips in this edition) can the fighter's player narrate "I want to remember the words to the prayer so I can cast guidance." sure... and in this case most DMs (I assume) would tell them "You can roll to remember but not to cast it" or something along those lines.

I can even phrase the action for @iserith Player of FIghter: "I wish to remember using my past religious studies the wording of the prayer used by the clergy of Behumut asking for guidance"


so back to cha skills (that are not called out as being different in the PHB) "I wish to intimidate the kolold to make him tell us where the treasure is." "You can roll to try to be intimidating, but you can't dictate his responce to being intimidated"

DMs that think like me: "The orc growls menecing and tries to intimidate you into running"
Player shouldn't need to say but can: "You can try to intimidate me, but you can't control my fight or flight response."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

okay, a starting point of understanding

yes and no. it is success in what the skill/ability can do, not nessescaraly ANYTHING the player narrates... back in 4e we had a PC joke about "Push ups for insight" becuse they could then make a str+athletics check... they even had a thing on there phone about how exersise increaed blood flow and let you think clearer... we still joke about it many (too many don't make an old man count) years later.

most yes, there are some times that there are 'degree' of success but then we would be WAY into the weeds of house rules and rulings and lots of getting off toppic, for this purpose YES.

yeah, climb a tree (if check is needed) str+athletics. you either climb or not. Arcana check to remember a mystic note on sigils you either remember or not. Persusasion check to make a persuasive argument you either do or don't make a persuasive argument.

no matter how much I narrate I climb a tree to find a clue, if there is not clue there I succseed in the climb and find nothing
no matter how much i narrate I remember the not on mystic sigils, but if that doesn't tell me who the caster is, remembering succseeded but didin't help
no matter how persuasive an argument I make, all I as the player (or DM) can do is be persuasive, not then say how the other (PC/NPC/Monster) reacts.

If you intimidate a kobold to tell you where the treasure is, then yeah 99% of the time the normal clear thought is intimidate, tell him... If you intimidate the LT of the town guard to let you by, you might make him yell for help... you Intimidated successfully both times, but once it didn't give you the result you wanted..


real world example: when I was in my 20's (you know back with the dinosaurs) my mother called me and told me how upset she was about something my sister had done to her by a boyfriend. I was persuaded to drive to his house calling 2 friends to meet me there and threaten his life in a highly illegal way (and tbf what he did was wrong, and evil, but not a crime). My goal was to make him stop the behavior... I found out later my mom only wanted me to call my sister at her house to consol her. He broke up with her calling her many names and saying I was crazy (fair by his POV in retrospect). My mom persuaded me to do something, I intimidated him to do something... what I did and what he did was NOT the end result we were looking for (although again in retrospect i think it was foreseeable)


success in a skill (or defaulting to an attribute) is ONLY that, you can state your intention and the DM/Player can take in under advisement, but that doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything.

I'm not sure we're even having the same conversation at this point. I really do think it is a playstyle difference that is preventing clear communication here.

Let me try once more:

You say a Charisma(Intimidation) ability check is a "test to see how intimadating the character (PC or NPC ) is". You seem to want the number to describe the magnitude of the action rather than to determine the degree of the outcome. Correct? In the case of the NPC trying to intimidate the PC, a 23 roll means the NPC was very intimidating and the player then has their PC react accordingly. Is that an accurate depiction of how it works at your table?

I'm saying a Charisma(Intimidation) is called for by a DM to see if the action declaration of trying to intimidate another creature either works or doesn't work. I'm saying the number, when compared to the DC set by the DM, describes whether the attempt is successful or fails - which are outcome states. Do you see the difference?

 

[clearstream]

You were trying to equate Menacing Attack to an attempt to socially intimidate. No?

Oh, I see. Not on the axis you might be thinking of.

I am pointing out that there are game mechanics that decide character behaviour, overriding the general rule that players decide what their character thinks and does. A powerful group of exceptions. Menacing attack is an interesting case because it is not a spell, not even magical, which are commonly cited as carve outs from controlling what player-characters think or do.

The equality therefore, is that both social skills and menacing attack are exceptions that can override the general rule. That is why I drew attention to Insight, the implications of which have now been spelled out.

 

[HammerMan]

I'm not sure we're even having the same conversation at this point. I really do think it is a playstyle difference that is preventing clear communication here.

I don't know what it is, but sometimes I feel you guys and I need a translator.

Let me try once more:

You say a Charisma(Intimidation) ability check is a "test to see how intimadating the character (PC or NPC ) is". You seem to want the number to describe the magnitude of the action rather than to determine the degree of the outcome. Correct?

in general no.
in general there is a threshold set (called a DC, and normally by the DM) you need to meet or exceed that to succeed. However (and yes now we are in interpreting, house ruleing and rule calling) with ANY check there is a difference between "not even close", "almost but not good enough", "Just barely did it", and "Wow, you made that look easy."
are there times where some DMs use a sliding scale and roll with no DC in mind... most likely, but we are not talking about that. we are talking about successes on the checks.

lets say I make the DC to intimidate a default Wis score with some creature adding there cha mod to it (I don't this is just so we don't argue DCs I just made this up now)

So an orc with a wis and cha of 10 is DC 10 (by my house rules an auto success for anyone trained in the skill, because I don't call for non combat rolls below an 11) but lets remove my house rule. the PC RPs a great intimidate and I tell them to roll... the biniary is DC10 or not (my close,bad good not withstanding) so they roll and get a 10 or higher or they don't... I then RP the orc as Intimidated.

Now if in the above roll the player WANTED to intimidate the orc to run, I might just say "Okay" but I also might say "sorry Urghie is a character and I know his mindset, when intimidated he lashes out...so he is about to punch you, roll initative.

In the case of the NPC trying to intimidate the PC, a 23 roll means the NPC was very intimidating and the player then has their PC react accordingly. Is that an accurate depiction of how it works at your table?

correct, they have 100% control of there reaction, and them reacting to a 23 should (and 99% of the time is) diffrent then there reaction to a 7 is... even though both are result are possible for a +5 intimidate (3 prof 2 cha) to roll.

I'm saying a Charisma(Intimidation) is called for by a DM to see if the action declaration of trying to intimidate another creature either works or doesn't work.

I agree. it works or it doesn't. you just don't get to say to the DM what working looks like (and same to DM to player or player to player)

I'm saying the number, when compared to the DC set by the DM, describes whether the attempt is successful or fails - which are outcome states. Do you see the difference?

I see no diffrence in the base, I acknowladge that my degree of success is a house rule.

 

[HammerMan]

Oh, I see. Not on the axis you might be thinking of.

I am pointing out that there are game mechanics that decide character behaviour, overriding the general rule that players decide what their character thinks and does. A powerful group of exceptions. Menacing attack is an interesting case because it is not a spell, not even magical, which are commonly cited as carve outs from controlling what player-characters think or do.

The equality therefore, is that both social skills and menacing attack are exceptions that can override the general rule. That is why I drew attention to Insight, the implications of which have now been spelled out.

don't forget the 9th level rouge ability too add the charm condition without magic. (swashbuckler I think(

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, I see. Not on the axis you might be thinking of.

I am pointing out that there are game mechanics that decide character behaviour, overriding the general rule that players decide what their character thinks and does. A powerful group of exceptions. Menacing attack is an interesting case because it is not a spell, not even magical, which are commonly cited as carve outs from controlling what player-characters think or do.

The equality therefore, is that both social skills and menacing attack are exceptions that can override the general rule. That is why I drew attention to Insight, the implications of which have now been spelled out.

Why are these exceptions but CHA ability checks are not? Honest question. I don't see anything that would indicate a specificity qualifier that would explain this choice. The general rule is still generally applicable -- most of the game will not feature such checks so it's still a valid rule.

Also, on the magic side, that has even more issues because most monster abilities that inflict emotional or mental states are not specifically called out as magical and so are not -- they function perfectly well inside anti-magic zones. Dragon fear, ghost fear, etc all work and are not magic.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There is no "might" for the categories at all. We have...

"Choose the starting attitude of a creature the adventurers are interacting with: friendly, indifferent, or hostile."

That's a definite statement. No ambiguity or "might" in there. You the DM pick one starting attitude. The following are the attituded.

"A friendly creature wants to..."
"An indifferent creature might..."
"A hostile creature opposes the..."

Note the lack of might with regard to the categories. One of them does use "might" with regard to what an indifferent creature might do, but there's no ambiguity or "might" with regard to the three categories themselves.

The word "might" is used in the changing the attitude section, because the section doesn't know the outcome of the conversation and any possible rolls. Those things are up to the DM and circumstances to figure out. There are rules for starting attitudes and how to change them, though. That much is clear.

Then contrast that with the entire chapter in n combat, where “might” is used primarily to describe possible decisions made by the combatants, not the implementation of the rules.

Nowhere in the section on Interaction does it say anything like, “If the DC is met or exceeded, the target’s attitude increases by one step.” It might do that.

The whole thing is predicated on DM judgment calls, not implementation of an algorithm. Even the initial conditions and DCs are just the DM picking stuff.

Basically it’s the illusion of rules overlaid on roleplaying. For…legitimacy?

 

[Ovinomancer]

see my above examples (and my fail at useing multi quote

I have a rather different philosophy of play from you, in that I can completely hold that a success to climb a tree and find a clue can very much mean that there is a clue there to be found. It's a different approach, and not one that's terribly congruent with 5e in general, but one that can be deployed in this way. This is a very different discussion, but suffice it to say that my arguments do not rest upon your examples to be cogent.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oh, I see. Not on the axis you might be thinking of.

I am pointing out that there are game mechanics that decide character behaviour, overriding the general rule that players decide what their character thinks and does. A powerful group of exceptions. Menacing attack is an interesting case because it is not a spell, not even magical, which are commonly cited as carve outs from controlling what player-characters think or do.

The equality therefore, is that both social skills and menacing attack are exceptions that can override the general rule. That is why I drew attention to Insight, the implications of which have now been spelled out.

Hence my question which is driving at the difference between the two... indeed there is no "equality" here as exceptions as you are indicating.

Menacing Attack imposes the Frightened condition (on a failed save)
A successful CHA(Intimidate) ability check has no such explicit rule

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then contrast that with the entire chapter in n combat, where “might” is used primarily to describe possible decisions made by the combatants, not the implementation of the rules.

Nowhere in the section on Interaction does it say anything like, “If the DC is met or exceeded, the target’s attitude increases by one step.” It might do that.

The whole thing is predicated on DM judgment calls, not implementation of an algorithm. Even the initial conditions and DCs are just the DM picking stuff.

Basically it’s the illusion of rules overlaid on roleplaying. For…legitimacy?

Not quite. That section says the GM determines if it's possible, which goes back to the normal play loop. If they GM determines it's uncertain and calls for a roll, then the implication is strongly that a success will improve attitude. Or, the implication that success should be honored is as strong as it is for any other ability check, which is to say not very strong. You'll note that the rules don't actually suggest that the GM is bound by the result of the called for check, only that one is made and the GM then determines the outcome. A sad bit of oversight, if you ask my opinion.