D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

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.

no if all you did was offer guidance it would not... however again, you go father then that. You refuse to acknowledge any position but your own has any merit.

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 have responded. I disagree. the monster manual is not set up for monster vs monster and NPC vs NPC. there is also no carve out in skills or monsters stating that some skills can be used on PCs and others can not.

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?

yes, okay I misrepresented your argument. I still disagree with your reading of the rules, and my reading is no less (or more) valid then yours and the last 30+ pages would have been better spent showing the strengths and weaknesses of both and how both work insteaad of this argument.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

has anyone said you loose control of you character?

like this strawman... the player agency. Who is actively pushing this argument?

 

[Voadam]

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.

I don't take it as a three part list of creating characters, providing rules, and guidance

"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 take that as Part 1 is about creating characters. This involves providing the rules and guidance for doing so. I don't take the inclusion of guidance as redundant, but as saying there is advice separate from rules.

For example on Page 8 (still in the intro before Part 1)

"You can think of an adventure as a single episode of a TV series, made up of multiple exciting scenes."

This seems more like guidance as advice or suggestion than synonomous with rules text.

 

[iserith]

no if all you did was offer guidance it would not... however again, you go father then that. You refuse to acknowledge any position but your own has any merit.

If we're talking about what the rules say, I'll Like the post of anyone who gets it correct, even if we're disagreeing on other matters. @Maxperson and I disagree on many things. But here they are correct in my view and so credit where credit is due. It doesn't matter to me if they are wrong on Int-5 Sherlock Holmes.

If we're talking about acknowledging that how someone plays is valid provided their group likes it, that is a given and I've said as much.

I have responded. I disagree. the monster manual is not set up for monster vs monster and NPC vs NPC. there is also no carve out in skills or monsters stating that some skills can be used on PCs and others can not.

The rules for ability checks are set up for resolving all actions regardless of who is taking the action and who may be affected by it.

yes, okay I misrepresented your argument..

Thank you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Whatever. I’ll let @iserith keep tilting at this particular windmill.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't take it as a three part list of creating characters, providing rules, and guidance

"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 take that as part 1 is about creating characters. This involves providing the rules and guidance for doing so. I don't take the inclusion of guidance as redundant, but as saying there is advice separate from rules.

For example on Page 8

"You can think of an adventure as a single episode of a TV series, made up of multiple exciting scenes."

This seems more like guidance as advice or suggestion than synonomous with rules text.

I think the "guidance" is also in the example of Building Bruenor and the Quick Build sections under each class. Those are not rules, per se, but guidance on how to implement rules and get up and running quickly.

 

[iserith]

I think the "guidance" issue is another injection of obfuscation into the discussion.

Nothing changes here. Neither the rules nor the guidance supports social skills being able to influence a character, nor does it suggest that an ability check be used for determining color or flavor for describing the environment.

 

[HammerMan]

If we're talking about what the rules say, I'll Like the post of anyone who gets it correct, even if we're disagreeing on other matters.

but we have gone far beyond a rules call here... we have our proof and documentation and you have yours... we read the same rule different.

The rules for ability checks are set up for resolving all actions regardless of who is taking the action and who may be affected by it.

yes and if there are questions on if someone can or can not accomplish the task we roll and add the modifier.

Can the orc intimidate?
Can the Succubus's seduce?
Can the goblin climb the wall?
Can the king make a persuasive speech?

we don't roll every action. we roll the ones that matter and that we are unsure of the outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't take it as a three part list of creating characters, providing rules, and guidance

"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 take that as Part 1 is about creating characters. This involves providing the rules and guidance for doing so. I don't take the inclusion of guidance as redundant, but as saying there is advice separate from rules.

For example on Page 8 (still in the intro before Part 1)

"You can think of an adventure as a single episode of a TV series, made up of multiple exciting scenes."

This seems more like guidance as advice or suggestion than synonomous with rules text.

Alright, solid analysis. This, then, would seem to suggest that part 1 contains rules, and contains guidance (which I still think ought to be separated by a comma, but whatever).

 

[iserith]

but we have gone far beyond a rules call here... we have our proof and documentation and you have yours... we read the same rule different.

As stated already, your "proof and documentation" ignores fundamental aspects of the rules, particularly around how ability checks are resolved.

Can the orc intimidate?
Can the Succubus's seduce?
Can the goblin climb the wall?
Can the king make a persuasive speech?

we don't roll every action. we roll the ones that matter and that we are unsure of the outcome.

Where an attempt is being made to persuade, deceive, or intimidate a player character, the outcome cannot be uncertain because the player decides what the character does. If there's no uncertainty, there can be no ability check. What you're doing is rolling a die to color or flavor your description and/or to communicate to the player with mechanics instead of or in addition to words.