D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

Not necessarily. The rule is not "if climb, then roll Athletics" or "if search for clue, then roll Investigation." If it was, then yeah, you're going to have to break that out into distinct ability checks to resolve the action declaration.

The DM can instead say that climbing the tree is trivially easy, thus making the outcome certain and thus there is no ability check to resolve climbing the tree. The DM may then say the clue is hidden, making finding it uncertain, and call for an ability check. One action declaration, one roll resolves.

Yet still two resolutions, notwithstanding. In this case the DM resolved the first, the die roll resolved the second.

Alternatively, the DM can say that climbing the tree is hard, perhaps because it is slippery, but that once up in the tree's canopy, the clue is easy to see. So here the DM just calls for the Strength (Athletics) check to climb and, if successful, the PC gets to the canopy safely and the clue is there to be found. In this case, the clue is just part of describing the environment after narrating the successful climb.

Again, two resolutions, only this time the roll-DM sequence is reversed.

And what if the clue isn't there at all - the character's climbed the wrong tree, or the mysterious "third branch to the left on the side of sunrise" referred to in the prophecy was actually talking about a river and the PCs blew the call?

 

[iserith]

yes and as such you can tell people how you read it... when you try to pretend that you are able to out right declair yourself right and everyone else wrong is where the issue comes up.

I don't see any issue though. We're having a discussion. That is all.

Did you read the short-form scenarios I linked showing where NPCs may be making ability checks in social situations?

 

[iserith]

Yet still two resolutions, notwithstanding. In this case the DM resolved the first, the die roll resolved the second.

Again, two resolutions, only this time the roll-DM sequence is reversed.

And what if the clue isn't there at all - the character's climbed the wrong tree, or the mysterious "third branch to the left on the side of sunrise" referred to in the prophecy was actually talking about a river and the PCs blew the call?

I'm not sure I understand the concern about "two resolutions" for one action declaration then. It really just all flows through the play loop and adjudication process as normal so far as I can tell.

Searching for a clue that isn't there results in failure with no roll because the outcome is certain.

 

[Bill Zebub]

yes that is what I have been saying...
Orc/Dragon intimidates
succubuss seduces
king makes a persuasive argument

Right. And if we look up the most applicable text in each case we find:

Orc/Dragon*: “player decides how their character thinks and acts”
Succubus: “target makes a saving throw vs….etc”
King: “player decides how their character thinks and acts”

See the difference?

*If you were thinking of the Dragon’s actual fear ability, that is resolved more like the succubus

 

[Mordhau]

These things need to be reviewed and approved. They don't just get designed by different people and dropped in without there being oversight.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say they're inconsistent and that they're also check to make sure they're not inconsistent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “adjustment.” The objections you raise here do not, in my assessment, contradict my position. The entirety of a monster’s stat block is functional under my interpretation, and consistent with how PCs “use skills.” I find your insistence that what a character knows and what a character thinks are the same thing absurd on its face. I don’t know what you mean by “I have to modify how the basic loop of play functions for particular things” - the basic loop of play is foundational to my interpretation!

Yeah, it seems we've hit a massive impasse. I legit don't know how to deal with the statement that knowing and thinking are obviously different and any thought that they are related is absurd on it's face. It seems premised on a need for these things to be different rather than any argument about how they are completely different parts of cognition. The closest I can get is maybe an idea that knowing a thing and then thinking about the knowledge of that thing are somehow separable, but even here I can't get my head around how you could possibly do this given how intricately interwoven even these concepts are. I guess they're different things in the sense of just writing one down separately from the other? I dunno, I'm flummoxed. And that's just the one thing.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't see any issue though. We're having a discussion. That is all.

if you would open your mind to the possibility of others being able to honestly read the rules, and apply the rules diffrent then you do and not be wrong... there wouldn't be a problem. We could compair result and how both work, and then we could all have fun games... instead you come in declairing you are right.

Did you read the short-form scenarios I linked showing where NPCs may be making ability checks in social situations?

no
I will not read ANYTHING you wrote calling something a form troll... your attempt at insults are very clear.

 

[Voadam]

One of the arguments seems to be there is no contradictions between ability checks as written and player decides because of the uncertainty aspect of ability checks.

It seems that absent the roleplay rule the ability checks rule would on their face apply to attempts to mechanically influence PCs the same way an NPC can attempt to stabilize a dying PC as an example of a wisdom medicine check resolution. The language and concepts both conceptually include both PCs and NPCs. It is because of the roleplay rule that the not certain outcome comes into effect cutting off ability check applicability for the charisma checks.

So on their own ability checks are a rule that specifically apply to attempts to influence PCs. Which directly contradicts the roleplay rule.

It is only with the addition of the roleplay rule that results go from uncertain to not uncertain and so ability checks change to no longer apply and therefore no longer contradict the roleplay rule. If the ability checks did not have the explicit statement of uncertainty inapplicability or did have a statement of an explicit example of affecting a PC there would be a direct contradiction and ability checks would again be useable under this logic chain.

(This is of course ignoring Maxperson's argument that framing the ability checks as affecting somebody instead of NPCs, and the fact that descriptions of persuasion skills went from explicitly being only NPC-affecting to descriptions that can apply to PCs is zero evidence of effects being able to affect PCs while the specific examples in the PH being framed as PCs affecting NPCs is evidence that effects only work on NPCs).

 

[HammerMan]

Right. And if we look up the most applicable text in each case we find:

Orc/Dragon*: “player decides how their character thinks and acts”
Succubus: “target makes a saving throw vs….etc”
King: “player decides how their character thinks and acts”

wait... why is there a save? if she isn't useing magic I see no save... and I know this is another aside, but what are you seeing making that a save? is it diffrent if I say Bar Maid Seduces?

See the difference?

nope... still has the question that every one of us asks "Is this something that needs a roll to see if the ____(Orc/Dragon/Succubus/king) can pull off, or is it something I just know they can't or something I just know they can...
then in all 3 cases (baring me finding out what you mean by save for succubus) the Player determines how they react.

*If you were thinking of the Dragon’s actual fear ability, that is resolved more like the succubus

what does dragon fear have to do with this?

 

[iserith]

if you would open your mind to the possibility of others being able to honestly read the rules, and apply the rules diffrent then you do and not be wrong... there wouldn't be a problem. We could compair result and how both work, and then we could all have fun games... instead you come in declairing you are right.

I'm declaring what the rules say, that is all. If someone says the rules say something other than they say, I'll point that out as being incorrect. I won't say how someone plays is wrong, even if it's not my preference.

no
I will not read ANYTHING you wrote calling something a form troll... your attempt at insults are very clear.

Two things - (1) there's another scenario that doesn't contain the words "forum troll." Please feel free to read it to see proof that I believe NPCs may see their skill proficiencies utilized in social situations. You made an assertion that I said only PCs can do this per RAW. I clearly don't think that is true and these scenarios are further proof. And (2) upthread you insisted many times that people go back and read your previous posts for evidence of support for your position. Now it seems when you're confronted with truth, you are unwilling to do what you demanded of others.