D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

This is a subtle bit of strawmanning.

It wasn’t intended to be. My apologies if I misun your position.

I don't deny this is a perfectly valid description of play. However, if monsters are assigned proficiency in social skills, then this is an indication that this bonus is to be useful. If that bonus is to be useful, the the basic CHA bonus is also to be useful.

I agree, and if I gave the impression that I didn’t, I haven’t expressed myself adequately.

The only way these can be useful is if it's not always certain for use against PCs, because that's the only way to get to those numbers being useful.

I disagree that the outcome of an ability score bonus or proficiency must be applicable in the specific case of a check being made to resolve an action taken with intent to force a player’s character to make a certain decision in order to be useful. There are plenty of other cases where those bonuses may be applicable, which would therefore make them useful.

So I actually rely on the normal loop of play for the argument, I don't discount it as you seem to suggest here.

I had no intent of suggesting that you discount the normal play loop. I was specifically taking issue with the way you describe ability checks as something a character “uses against” another character. I think this way of framing ability checks creates a lot of misunderstandings, same as calling them “skill checks” does.

The counter to this is that such bonuses are really only useful against other NPCs or monsters, but this implies strongly that GM solo play is expected by the rules, despite it not being mentioned anywhere. And I say GM solo play because any such usage has zero input from the PCs -- it's only the GM playing between they're NPCs.

The idea that the DM is not expected to use ability checks to resolve actions that NPCs take that could affect other NPCs seems like an unfounded assumption to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

However, if monsters are assigned proficiency in social skills, then this is an indication that this bonus is to be useful. If that bonus is to be useful, the the basic CHA bonus is also to be useful.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Not everybody at WotC necessarily got the memo, especially in the early days, that 5e was a bit different from previous editions. (I mean, 7 years later and look how many people here still fail to grasp it.). Lots of different writers worked on products, and they might not necessarily have understood how it works.

My evidence for that is Lost Mines of Phandelver, in which the 5e play loop is basically ignored in some of the area descriptions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Allowance is made for the GM to determine a thing is uncertain, though.

Allowance is made for the DM to do literally anything they want, so this seems like a meaningless point to me.

There's no specific mention of any number of possible actions that GM can determine are uncertain and deploy ability checks. Asking for specific evidence of one is not showing anything at all -- this is a reiteration of the earlier arguments that suggest that since shove is explicitly provided additional rules/guidance, it's clear that other uses are not available because they are lacking. This is why I turned it around on you -- the claim you're asking for is equally silly to asking to prove a negative.

When ruling an action as uncertain requires specifically contradicting a general rule - or “suspending roleplaying” as clearstream framed it, it is reasonable to expect there to be a suggestion somewhere in the rules that the DM aught to do so, and in what circumstances. Since no such suggestion seems to exist, I think I am justified in saying that such an action is not supported by the rules. Doesn’t mean the DM isn’t permitted to do it. Just means the rules don’t ever tell them to.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Next time it might be easier to just try intimidating the tree and have done with it...

Is there anything in the rules that says you can't try to "use Intimidate" on a tree?

 

[Lanefan]

I was intentionally casting this debate as highlighting the tension that we see in many forum discussions, between the primacy of roleplaying over the primacy of game. 5th edition settles that for us: it expressly gives roleplay and ability checks equal primacy.

Which in the end doesn't settle anything, does it? If they're given equal primacy then arguments in favour of using either one are equally valid, and round and round and round we go because nobody can point to the rule-guideline-carved stone tablet that says "this one takes precedence".

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but this isn't a rules issue -- asking for that roll is perfectly fine within the rules. It's a social contract issue. And, to me, the discussion about whether or not you can use social skills against PCs also belongs firmly in the social contract as well. The actual rules are far to muddy and unclear to eke out a fully defensible claim to RAW or even RAI just using them. Heck, to find RAI you have to follow Jeremy on Twitter!

I dunno, I don’t follow Jeremy on Twitter and I seem to have arrived at the RAI simply by reading the RAW in its entirety and trying to take it on its own terms. I didn’t even know Jeremy Crawford had confirmed it was RAI until you said as much earlier in this thread (and frankly I’m just taking your word for it that he did). So evidently it can be arrived at from the actual rules alone. Maybe they aren’t as muddy to others as they are to you.

 

[Mordhau]

Is there anything in the rules that says you can't try to "use Intimidate" on a tree?

I'd allow it.

Player: I want to intimidate that tree.
DM: Ok. Make a roll:
Player: Natural 20
DM: The wind rustles through the leaves and you think you detect a nervous shudder in the branches. Or maybe it's just the wind.
Player: Can I roll Insight to check?
DM. No F$%^%$^

 

[Charlaquin]

Is there anything in the rules that says you can't try to "use Intimidate" on a tree?

I realize this probably wasn’t a serious question, but you can certainly try to get a tree to do something by acting threateningly towards it. I don’t think the rules would support the DM in calling for a a Charisma (Intimidation) check to resolve that action though. Unless it was like an awakened tree or something.

 

[Lanefan]

Try making a player roll to have their PC walk across a normal room. You'll find out in no uncertain terms what the outcome is.

What is it?

In my case it'd probably be a d20 bounced off my forehead.

Other tables may vary this outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, misclick.