D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Sure, if we want to split the hair further, we might ask: when does the attack happen? When it is declared? When the character draws its weapon? When the roll happens? Does it really matter? It is going to fail regardless of when one says the "attack" happens. I believe charm does not prevent trying. The mechanic here prevents the outcome of the behavior, not the behavior itself. I mean, a DM would be within their rights to say it does prevent trying and that may even be the RAI, but I don't think it matters in the end as long as the attack doesn't hit. That is the important part of the mechanic. Roleplay it out however you like, players.

To be clear, as DM, I would stop the player from rolling to attack the Charmer. The Charmed PC cannot carry out the attack. The outcome is certain. No roll.

You must surely be able to see that for the sake of the argument, it matters whether it is possible to attempt? I mean, the last few pages of posts honestly feel mealy-mouthed on this subject. Some say it doesn't matter, but sotto voce of course the player can really still decide. Etc.

Bah!

 

[Maxperson]

What the character believes the facts of the matter are - what they think - is being decided by the social interaction mechanics.

Not by the way the rules are written. There's no support for that and we know that RAI is for that not to happen. All support in the rules is for social skills to be able to alter how NPCs think and behave, not the other way around.

Or does the belief that NPC Q is in fact NPC Z in your view work as a kind of void in the mind, given rise to solely by an absence of facts to the contrary? And by no means installed by positive facts such as they look like Z?

I'm not sure what you mean here exactly.

Let's say NPC Q has disguised himself as NPC Z. If no PC questions that deception, there is no roll. The player thinks that NPC Q is NPC Z, therefore his PC thinks the same thing. At no point was any ability check or skill involved.

Now let's say that the player does suspect that NPC Q isn't really NPC Z. He tells the DM that he is suspicious of NPC Q and looks closely at him. The DM may call for a perception or insight check opposed by a deception check. Success would give clues or outright knowledge that this isn't NPC Z. Failure would simply mean that the PC can't tell. The player at that point is free to continue to suspect or to accept that it is NPC Z.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You must surely be able to see that for the sake of the argument, it matters whether it is possible to attempt? I mean, the last few pages of posts honestly feel mealy-mouthed on this subject. Some say it doesn't matter, but sotto voce of course the player can really still decide. Etc.

Bah!

Tell me then, what is the effect on actual play? How does it change step 3 of the play loop if the player can really still decide how their character thinks, acts, or speaks? Your whole argument seems to be based on the conflation of knowing and thinking, doing and acting, and whatever the parallel thing is for speaking (someone help me out here). How about: your whole argument seems to be rooted in the conflation of PC behaviors and the outcomes of said behaviors.

Is it really not clear how those things inhabit separate steps in the play loop?

 

[Mordhau]

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.

This makes me think - are there any examples of Persuasion or Intimidate being made as opposed rolls or against a passive score? What is Intimidate opposed by? (Not what do we think it should be opposed to - but what to the rules say?).

Because the default seems to be that ability checks are made against DC unless there are specific rolls governing otherwise. And rolls that influence PCs are never made against DCs.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

The play loop is not prescriptive: "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

Honestly, RAW, the play loop is a very weak argument, but in actual play it's even worse. Are you telling me that you always respect the play loop and that any action in the game is only initiated by the PCs ? Come on...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The play loop is not prescriptive: "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

Honestly, RAW, the play loop is a very weak argument, but in actual play it's even worse. Are you telling me that you always respect the play loop and that any action in the game is only initiated by the PCs ? Come on...

The play loop is happening during combat, too. Any actions initiated by the DM are in step one. Think about it.

On my phone, or I’d be more illustrative.

 

[Lyxen]

The play loop is happening during combat, too.

First, the RAW tell you it's not the case, I have given you the exact quote that proves that the DM is choosing actions as well as the players. Second, it's obviously not true, when it's a monster/NPC's turn he is not acting due to an action from the PC, and it's not just narration coming from the DM.

Any actions initiated by the DM are in step one. Think about it.

This is a very narrow reading of the loop which is not only invalidated by the RAW I have given you, but is also absurd when considering the fact that step 3 only describes the result of the adventurer's actions, whereas in combat, it's as much the result of the Monsters/NPCs actions as well as the Adventurers.

 

[Charlaquin]

I realise that these arguments are put forward, not from bad faith, but from prior commitments. Game mechanics intrude on roleplaying. They do so in many ways. Sometimes preventing the player from deciding to do a certain thing (a charmed player-character can't decide to attack). Sometimes deciding what they think (a player-character deceived by an NPC disguise will given facts in mind that are contrary to the truth).

With you so far.

On exceptions to general. The argument you put to my reading amounts to lack of narrow enough specification to satisfy you as constituting exceptions. You hold there is a general rule - roleplay - which is not a rule but a definition in context. Even taken as a rule, social interaction skills can be used - possibly should only be used - as game mechanics in perfectly well specified ways. There really is no lack of specificity in how to use them. And there need be no lack of specificity in the outcome of their use. When used in such ways, they will satisfy the conditions judged satisfactory for the use of other game mechanics. (And this is given that there was any issue with their specificity in the first place, which I do not concede.)

I think this is where communication is breaking down between us. The reason that I don’t see ability checks (social or otherwise) as overriding the general rule (or definition or whatever you want to call it) around players deciding what their characters do is not lack of specificity, but order of operations. Like, let’s say it was a rule that a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check could impose the Frightened condition on another creature. I still wouldn’t think it was appropriate to call for a Charisma (Intimidation) check to resolve an attempt to frighten a PC, because the basic procedure of play is for the player to describe their action, then the DM to assess its certainty and stakes, then to call for a roll of some sort to be made if needed to resolve that uncertainty, then to describe the results of the action. So, when a player describes that they try to frighten another player’s character by saying “boo” or whatever, (or, you know, the DM describes an NPC doing it, I guess), the DM then has to assess if this action can succeed or fail. Can saying boo succeed at frightening this character? Well, according to the rules for roleplaying, no, it can’t, because the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does. So, it is not uncertain and therefore not appropriate to call for an ability check in the first place.

Some spells and other abilities, like Charm Person, contain specific exceptions to this general procedure. When a player describes their character casting Charm Person on another player’s character (or the DM describes an NPC doing so), the DM must again assess whether this action can succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes. Can the character succeed at casting Charm Person? Assuming they have a spellcasting feature and Charm Person is among their spells known and prepared, yes (otherwise, no, and the action fails without a roll). Can they fail to cast Charm Person? No, not according to the rules for spellcasting; there are no rules for a spell failure chance in 5e. So, the action succeeds without a roll, and we apply the specific effects of Charm Person. In those effects, we see that the target must make a Wisdom saving throw (which contradicts the general rules regarding the play procedure, but this is a more specific rule than that, so it’s fine), and if they fail that saving throw they are charmed and must treat the caster as a friendly acquaintance (which contradicts the general rules regarding roleplaying, but this is again a more specific rule, so it’s fine.)

On lack of uncertainty. This is a simple case of cart-before-the-horse. A DM not only may, but must, decide what is uncertain. They should also consider other factors, like stakes. It is up to the DM in every case to decide what is uncertain and where the stakes are high enough to matter.

Sure, but the criteria the DM uses for determining if an action is uncertain are the fictional positioning based on their own description of the environment, the player’s description of their action, and the rules of the game. The rules wouldn’t support the DM in ruling that a character who doesn’t have a fly speed attempting to fly is uncertain. They also don’t support the DM in ruling that a character’s attempt to force a PC to make a certain decision is uncertain.

There are no carve outs for social interactions in the printed rules.

I don’t claim that there are. Maybe my above breakdown of the basic play procedure will help demonstrate that to you.

You may believe that social interaction is never uncertain, but that is only because of your prior commitments on the matter. It is normal that DMs will differ on when they will and will not call for checks. The best claim to higher ground belongs to the many lines on the DM's remit, and not to a few words that are about how to roleplay.

I understand that you are unable to see it that way: perhaps that is as far as we can get.

I don’t believe that social interaction is never uncertain. I believe that, in the absence of a more specific rule contradicting the rules surrounding the procedure of play and roleplaying, an action (social or otherwise) that is made with the attempt to force a PC to make a certain decision is never uncertain.

 

[Charlaquin]

This makes me think - are there any examples of Persuasion or Intimidate being made as opposed rolls or against a passive score? What is Intimidate opposed by? (Not what do we think it should be opposed to - but what to the rules say?).

Because the default seems to be that ability checks are made against DC unless there are specific rolls governing otherwise. And rolls that influence PCs are never made against DCs.

There are general rules for ability contests.

Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor.

This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal--for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.

Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.

I would say that one character lying and another character trying to catch them in the lie is an example of those characters’ efforts opposing each other.

As for passive checks, remember that they represent the average effort of an action being taken continuously over time. So if, for example, a player were to declare that they are suspicious of an NPC they were interacting with and going to watch him constantly for any nonverbal signs of deception, I think the DM would be well supported in having the player make a passive Wisdom (Insight) check, and having the NPC contest that with their Charisma (Deception) check when and if they lie.

EDIT: Sorry, just realized you were asking about intimidation, not deception. I think wisdom would be the most appropriate ability to contest (whether passively or not). As to what proficiency might apply, it would be context-dependent. I imagine that often wisdom saving throws might actually be the most appropriate proficiency in a lot of cases, but I’m not sure if there’s a solid example of this anywhere in the rules.

 

[Faolyn]

Nothing anyone has posted in those rules has been a CONTRADICTION. Even if you are correct and those skills can be used against PCs, NOTHING there contradicts the player's ability to make the decision himself using the general RP rules. Not one thing.

The charm person spell does, by specifying that the target views the caster as a friendly acquaintance. It specifically magicks the target into liking the caster. It doesn't make the target slavishly devoted to the caster, or make the target view the caster as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected (as per the dryad's charm), but it does contradict the player's choice: the player can't decide that the caster is an unfriendly or even neutral acquaintance.

When combined with the actual charmed condition (advantage on ability checks to interact socially with the charmed creature), it means that not only is the target forced to see the caster as a friendly person, they will be easily led into believing anything the target says.