D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

To me the issues arise when a player tries to tie more than one goal into one action.

Example: I climb the tree to look for a clue.

That's two goals in one. Goal one: to get up the tree. Goal two: to find a clue there. The player has indicated a goal, sure, but it doesn't map directly to the declared action, meaning these need to be broken out into two different actions/resolutions and dealt with sequentially.

Ok, if there are two actions in a player's declaration that are both uncertain and both with meaningful consequences of failure, I'll call for two different ability checks. See how elegant 5e can be? You should play with us sometime.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

except when we DO point to other rules, and show you our explanation of how we read it you KEEP insisting we are wrong but are free to be wrong at our table.

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.

your gas lighting and insulting examples are not arguments. You refuse to read ANY of what the rest of us have written in the form of our way of reading the rules, our page numbers and direct from D&D beyond copy/paste of rules.

Your DEMAND that I read about your insulting forum troll is out of line

 

[Voadam]

You mean the assumption that all the text in the rulebook is rules text? I’m not shy about my interpretation being founded on that assumption. I think it’s a pretty good assumption. The alternative would be that the rule books contain some text that isn’t rules, and doesn’t call that text out as special. Now, maybe that is indeed the case, and if it is, my position doesn’t really hold up. But as the text is unclear on the matter, we have to assume one way or the other. Any interpretation of the text must be based either on the assumption that the text in question is rules, or the assumption that it is not. Personally, I think the assumption that the text in the rule book is rules is the stronger one.

The PH page 6 seems to say there is both rules and guidance.

USING THIS BOOK
The Player's Handbook is divided into three parts. Part 1 (chapters 1-6) is about creating a character, providing the rules and guidance you need to make the character you'll play in the game.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok, if there are two actions in a player's declaration that are both uncertain and both with meaningful consequences of failure, I'll call for two different ability checks. See how elegant 5e can be? You should play with us sometime.

and or, like the example of looking for a clue in the tree that the DM knows no clue exists in you can call for that athletics climb and autofail/autosuccseed and say no clue.

The same way a Player (or DM) can not turn around and say "But I said I climb the tree to find the clue and I made the check to climb the tree" They also can not say "I made the intimidate check to make him let us by he can't yell in terror for help"

You climbed the tree and you intimidated... now the world is not under your control (by default of the game) but there is no clue and by scaring him instead of him doing what you want he yelled for help.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

(letters inserted into quote for reference)

The problem is that taking (a) to an extreme can and does lead directly to (b).

DM says "No evil PCs". Player says "I can roleplay my character any way I wish" and under cover of this maxim evils the hell out of it. Who wins? (in this particular instance I side with the player).

You are invoking bad faith play to prove a point. The underlying assumption is that everyone at the table is there to achieve the goals of play: have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story.

 

[HammerMan]

The PH page 6 seems to say there is both rules and guidance.

USING THIS BOOK
The Player's Handbook is divided into three parts. Part 1 (chapters 1-6) is about creating a character, providing the rules and guidance you need to make the character you'll play in the game.

wow, okay thank you.

I knew this was somewhere but you just nailed it... not everything in the books is a rule.

 

[iserith]

except when we DO point to other rules, and show you our explanation of how we read it you KEEP insisting we are wrong but are free to be wrong at our table.

Yes, that is how I see it in some cases, where what the rules say is concerned, and I explain my position accordingly.

your gas lighting and insulting examples are not arguments. You refuse to read ANY of what the rest of us have written in the form of our way of reading the rules, our page numbers and direct from D&D beyond copy/paste of rules.

Your DEMAND that I read about your insulting forum troll is out of line

I am neither demanding anything nor engaging in gaslighting. I've read every one of your posts, including the times you asked us to go back and refer to past posts. (I even went back responded to your 2 examples earlier in the thread as you requested.) I posted the links to two scenarios to show your assertion about my position was unfounded. I then asked - not demanded - if you read them. Now you are refusing to read either one because apparently one of them contains the word "forum troll" which actually refers to a monstrous troll in a Romanesque forum which is part of the scenario. I find this to be fascinating. Do please let us know if you read the other scenario I posted which does not contain this reference.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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?


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.

what does dragon fear have to do with this?

Succubus has an actual ability called Charm. I assumed you were referring to that, and saying it is the same thing as an orc trying to be intimidating without using an actual ability.

But it seems you weren’t, so….never mind.

Happy gaming.

 

[HammerMan]

You are invoking bad faith play to prove a point. The underlying assumption is that everyone at the table is there to achieve the goals of play: have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story.

okay, now step back and reread what you wrote. If we assume that we are all there to have a good time and create an exciting memorable (i would say game but use your)story. THen do you see that no one is trying to break the game, no one is trying to missrepresent rules, no one is taking PC agency... becuse... everyone at the table is there to achieve the goals of play: have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I think that’s not just one of the arguments, but THE argument.

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.

Seems so.

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

I disagree with you here. In my understanding, ability checks are the way the DM resolves actions when the fictional positioning alone is not enough to determine what the results of the action will be. This does not contradict the roleplay rule. Now, if it were not for the roleplay rule, there would most likely be situations where the fictional positioning alone was not enough to determine the outcome of an action taken to influence a PC’s decisions. But since the roleplay rule exists, there are not. The DM can always determine without calling for a check that an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions will fail. There are still, however, other actions that an NPC might take where the outcome is uncertain and a social proficiency is applicable, so they are still useful to list in NPC stat blocks.

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.

Sure.