D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

I like that you are making an express commitment. I think you mean to refer to PHB 185, not 174 though. Right?

A catch I think is that you and other posters have I think made it clear that the problem is insufficient specificity. You are okay - you have said - with effects that are specific enough. For example, you seem to be saying that the charm spell might be specific enough because it incorporates the charmed condition, and perhaps you are also fine with something like the dragon Frightening Presence trait.

So is it the case that were there similarly specific outcomes associated with the social interaction skills, you would also accept those? Say if Intimidate had an option the user could pick, which is to gain up to three truthful answers to a question they pose to their target?

In order for the results of a successful ability check to come into play, an ability check must first be made. My understanding is that ability checks are made to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. My understanding is that the outcome of an action that is made with the intent of forcing the player to make a specific decision for their character is not uncertain.

Charm Person does not require a successful ability check to be made in order to impose the charmed condition, nor does it require one to cause the affected creature to treat the caster as a friendly acquaintance. It does require the target to fail a Charisma saving throw to do those things, but it specifically says that the target must make a saving throw; a specific exception to the ordinary process of the DM determining if the action is uncertain and calling for an appropriate roll to be made if it is. Same deal with Frightful Presence.

 

[Charlaquin]

You do see that this appears to be in contradiction with the primacy you give roleplay-as-defined though, right? You are okay with intrusion on what a character thinks, says, or does, just so long as it is tightly specified.

That is how the rules work. Specific beats general is a fundamental part of the structure of the rules.

 

[Hriston]

A fantastic approach if you ask me!

Thanks! I find it works best when implemented as transparently as possible, in light of which the negotiation aspect of the OP's posted rule is excellent advice in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

Regarding 174, what do you make of "Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's." The example is of a monster trying to force open - pry one might say - a door that a character is holding closed.

Every example of that is physical. Two PCs going after a coin. The door example. Things like that. In those cases the PC isn't prevented from acting how he wants. His declared act is, "I try to get the coin first." or "I hold the door shut and don't let the ogre in." The results may not be what the player wants, but failure is not forcing the PC to act in a specific way or think something other than what the player wants.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

In my reading, it can’t make a PC believe it, no. A successful Insight vs. Deception contest might reveal to the player that the liar’s body language indicates a lack of confidence in what they are saying, while a failure on such a roll would impart no such information and leave the player free to decide what their character thinks about the truth value of the other character’s statement. Similar to how a successful Intelligence (History) check might reveal certain historical information to the player, while a failure would impart no such information and leave the player free to decide what their character thinks about past events.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I can’t imagine why a player would want to do so. If, at the table, a player whose character was charmed declared that they attack the charmer, I would say “that action would fail, because the charmed condition prevents you from attacking them. Would you like to try something else instead?” But I suppose, if the player insisted, I would allow them to spend their action trying and failing to attack the charmer…

 

[Maxperson]

You are free to play that way, of course, but you're not following the play loop as outlined in the rules. If the player declares that they are trying to get the Orc to back down by intimidating them, and the DM asks for a roll, then the roll is to determine if they succeed in their goal. Which is to get them to back down.

If you are asking them to roll for another reason, then you're not following the prescribed play loop.

This I don't agree with. The player declares the action. The DM calls for rolls if any. Then he narrates the outcome. The outcome does not have to match what the player intended. The narrative just has to flow organically from the declaration and situation.

You may want to intimidate the general into letting you go instead of imprisoning you, but success may just determine that he likes your spunk and drafts you. There was no chance at a successful intimidation, but there was a chance for the intimidation you tried to change the situation. The outcome was in doubt, it just wasn't the outcome you were trying for.

 

[Maxperson]

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

No. It cannot. It's specifically only a counter to insight. So a successful insight check = detection of the lie. A failed insight roll = can't tell. At no point does it = must believe that the lie is truth. The player is always free to have his PC suspect that there is a lie happening or believe the lie as truth. It's up to him.

 

[Maxperson]

Nevermind

 

[Maxperson]

I can’t imagine why a player would want to do so. If, at the table, a player whose character was charmed declared that they attack the charmer, I would say “that action would fail, because the charmed condition prevents you from attacking them. Would you like to try something else instead?” But I suppose, if the player insisted, I would allow them to spend their action trying and failing to attack the charmer…

I would actually house rule that to be allowed with the Charm Person spell only. Charm Person explicitly causes the target to view the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, so in my mind it's not as strong as the condition shows. If a friendly acquaintance of mine started trying to stab one of my close friends with a knife, his being a friendly acquaintance would not stop me from getting involved on the side of my friend.