D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

wow, okay thank you.

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

I'm not sure that's the win you're looking for. One could still say that the approach you use is not supported by the rules or guidance provided in the rules books. The end result is the same.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

My issue with this example is the movement component. I’m fine with the disadvantage on attacks because you can still swing your sword. I’d even be fine with automatic misses.

But the movement? What exactly happens when I say, “I walk toward the orc”?

“You just can’t.”

I hate that answer. That sounds an awful lot like, “You aren’t allowed to make that decision.”

There are many, many things like that in the game.
"I want to attack the baddie with my sword and then punch him."
"Are you a monk?"
"No."
"Then, sorry, to make an off-hand attack you must be using two light weapons."
Did we just tell the player that they "aren't allowed to make that decision"?

And on and on.
I mean, I support the sentiment of your post, but it goes without saying that in this game we all love to play (and waste away work hours discussing) there are constraints that we follow. The Frightened condition is one of these mechanical restraints.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yes, @Lanefan is describing a problem with humans, not a problem with rules.

I could turn the argument around and say that if players can be forced to abide by high Cha roles, then the Bard and Warlock are going to get all the magic items because they are going to “persuade” the other characters they should get them. (“Sorry, Carl, but he rolled a 23.”)

But I won’t, because “what about jerks at the table?” arguments are invalid.

 

[HammerMan]

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

and I acknowledge where you provide your insight into a different reading then my own... I only protest that you insist on making jabs and pretending your way is the only correct way to read it. the fact that you turn insulting when pushed is the icing on the cake

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I believe guidance here is being used as a synonym, not as a separate item from rules. If I’m not mistaken, WotC uses the Oxford comma, so there ought to be one between “rules” and “and guidance” if they’re meant to be separate items in a list.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Nobody is accusing you of doing any of those things, or even of playing in a “bad” way. We are just saying that you are mis-reading the text, and/or cherry-picking quotes, when you try to justify your approach as RAW or RAI.

 

[HammerMan]

I'm not sure that's the win you're looking for. One could still say that the approach you use is not supported by the rules or guidance provided in the rules books. The end result is the same.

well it is supported and I have shown it and so have others

 

[iserith]

and I acknowledge where you provide your insight into a different reading then my own... I only protest that you insist on making jabs and pretending your way is the only correct way to read it. the fact that you turn insulting when pushed is the icing on the cake

It's not an insult to offer an opinion that someone's reading of the rules and guidance is incorrect. It's just a discussion, not personal.

Speaking of discussion, to my knowledge, you have not retracted your assertion that I believe NPC skills proficiencies cannot come into play given my reading of the rules. I offered two scenarios to disprove that assertion in addition to the fact that I have never said that in this thread (and certainly in others). Will you retract that assertion?

 

[HammerMan]

Nobody is accusing you of doing any of those things, or even of playing in a “bad” way. We are just saying that you are mis-reading the text, and/or cherry-picking quotes, when you try to justify your approach as RAW or RAI.

we are all picking our quotes and interpreting them in our own best light...

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are many, many things like that in the game.
"I want to attack the baddie with my sword and then punch him."
"Are you a monk?"
"No."
"Then, sorry, to make an off-hand attack you must be using two light weapons."
Did we just tell the player that they "aren't allowed to make that decision"?

And on and on.
I mean, I support the sentiment of your post, but it goes without saying that in this game we all love to play (and waste away work hours discussing) there are constraints that we follow. The Frightened condition is one of these mechanical restraints.

Oh, I don’t mind the Frightened condition itself, or rules that limit my choice.

I just object to the DM making those rules up on the fly, on the strength of an orc trying to look scary. I like my loss of player control to be codified.

I mean, heck, the DM can just make up a new kind of orc that has an ability called “Ferocious Display.” But please structure it as an actual ability. Don’t open up the can of worms that goal & approach can start mimicking spells.