D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[billd91]

I think Barry Manilow gets that ninja.

Whoa, whoa, whoa…. Barry may have written the song, but not this one.

 

[Hriston]

That would work for me.

Out of curiosity, do you roll for the NPCs to see if they use that kind of pressure, or do you just make the call yourself? (Not a trap question; genuinely curious.)

It's neither actually. I keep the pressure on at every opportunity as long as the PC is lacking inspiration, so there's no judgement call for me to make about whether to apply it in the moment. I do make a "reaction roll" for the NPC's starting attitude, however, which can affect the form the pressure takes. A friendly NPC will offer the player an opportunity to play to their PC's TBIFs in a way that aligns with their immediate goals, whereas a hostile NPC will use the same kind of pressure to thwart those goals.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sigh. The primary point of the argument that I am contesting is to claim that this one interpretation is actually better than the others -- it's more epistemologically sound, I believe was an early claim.

Oh, for the love of…

Once again, I make no claims that my reading of the rules is more epistemologically sound than another reading of the rules. I was very specifically critiquing HammerMan’s counter-arguments against my reading as epistemologically unsound, because they were. I have explained this to you several times now, and yet you keep bringing it up. At this point I can only assume you are doing so as a bad-faith rhetorical tactic.

 

[clearstream]

Take out deception. That skill isn't at issue here. It doesn't make the PC believe or do anything.

So deception can't make a character believe that a lie is the truth?

 

[Maxperson]

It is, the DM can decide to roll whatever he wants whenever he wants, where do the rules ever say that ability checks are restricted to PCs, or even worse that some ability checks are restricted to PCs ?

The ability check rules say when to roll, and "I want to see how intimidating the orc is" isn't one of those rules. The roll is to see whether the result is successful or not, not to gauge whether the orc squeaks(low roll) or is very intimidating(high roll). The orc is going to be doing its best no matter what the roll.

Rolling to see whether it squeaks laughably or is very intimidating is a homebrew rolling method.

And neither is there any rule that say how intimidating a PC is to an orc, whether he succeeds on the check or not. Turn it as you want, it's absolutely symmetrical.

Yes there is. It's the same rule. The DM decides(since it's an NPC) whether the attempt is automatically successful, automatically a failure, or in doubt, in which case a roll is in order since it's an NPC and intimidate rolls can determine how an NPC reacts.

 

[clearstream]

A player says how their character thinks, speaks, and acts. They can indicate an action the character is attempting to do. The "does" part, the actual outcome of the action, is adjudicated by the DM.
"My character flies to the moon"
Auto-fail...
"Want to try something else?"
This explicitly does not violate the roleplaying rule.

Do you believe that a charmed character can attempt to attack their charmer?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Somehow I missed this, until somebody else quoted it...

C: I fly over to where the dragons are and...
DM: Um, look, your character cannot fly, maybe if...
C: But don't I get to decide what my character does (points at PHB175)
DM: ...
C: Okay, well if I can't fly there I teleport to...
DM: Sorry, but you also do not have the ability to teleport, would you...
C: Right, I dematerialise the dragons from here then, by thinking at them psionically!
DM: ...

Later
DM: The dwarf claims to know nothing about it, but...
C: I want to know if he's telling the truth!
DM: Okay, you can use your Insight against the dwarf's Deception
C: That's not right - I decide what my character thinks!
DM: Yes, but - your Insight is pretty good and he's willing to answer your, perhaps if you just roll...
C: Nope, there's no uncertainty here, he's lying!!
DM: ...

Much later, C finally encounters a dragon
DM: Okay, so you failed your Wisdom saving throw against Frightful Presence and..
C: Oh no, nope, no way. I decide what my character thinks, says and does, and my character is not frightened - it doesn't affect me. Chaaarrrrge!!!
DM: ...

I'm not even going to bother going through this line by line, but this red herring argument comes up ALL THE TIME. Or maybe it's not a red herring and indicates genuine misunderstanding?

In any event, Yoda was wrong. "Try" and "do" are two different things. The player controls try, the DM adjudicates do.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. This speaks to another trend at some tables where high ability check rolls by the players mean their PCs completed a task in a super duper great manner. Meanwhile, low ability check rolls means the PC was clumsy or just plain terrible at said task. I find these roll-based outcome narrations by the DM (or player) to fly in the face of the fact that the PCs are capable adventurers. It’s telling that there are no crits on ability checks or saves per RAW. A low ability check roll below the DC simply means the PC did not accomplish their goal and will suffer the meaningful consequence. No need to add insult to injury, IMO. Again, nothing wrong with choosing to play this way if it is fun for the table, but there is no rules support for it.

I actually use a combination method at my table. A failed roll is a failed roll, not the PC bungling it(other than if he rolls a 1. I do have skill fumbles), but if he rolls a 20 or exceeds the DC by a great amount, I will call it an exceptional success. You're good, but this time everything aligned and it was better than usual.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Do you believe that a charmed character can attempt to attack their charmer?

The player can declare that for their PC if they wish. However, as a DM, I'd kindly remind the player that such an action will auto-fail due to the Charmed condition and ask the player if they either a) want that to be the character's (wasted) action or b) want to have their PC try something else instead.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin may want to keep arguing the point about epistemological soundness, but I don't. I freely admit I'm choosing to give Rule 174 primacy.

I, likewise, freely admit that I am merely assuming “rule 134” or “the roleplaying rule” or “the guidance about roleplaying” or whatever we want to call it is a rule, on equal footing with other rules, that requires a more specific rule to be overridden (short of rule 0). I have said as much many times throughout the thread. My interpretation of the rules is indeed founded on that assumption and I make no bones about that fact. All interpretation of the text must be founded on either the assumption that the text in question is rules text, or the assumption that it is not. I, personally, favor the assumption that all the text in the rule book is rules text, because otherwise I would have to make many more assumptions about what parts of the text aren’t rules, since the text never calls any part of itself out as not rules text.