D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Wait, I must have missed something. @Lyxen, it seems like you’re saying that @Swarmkeeper is arguing the DM doesn’t choose actions for the monsters in combat? That doesn’t seem right.

 

[Charlaquin]

Me too

She quoted one of my posts talking about skills and social interactions, not Charm.

Oh ok, now that interaction makes more sense. Jeez, it’s easy to miss stuff in this thread.

 

[Lyxen]

Wait, I must have missed something. @Lyxen, it seems like you’re saying that @Swarmkeeper is arguing the DM doesn’t choose actions for the monsters in combat? That doesn’t seem right.

If I'm not mistaken, I think he is saying that the DM choosing actions for his monsters in combat is part of "describing the environment", which is for me stretching things way beyond the intention of the play loop, especially when a paragraph specifically says that, in combat (but not only), the players are not the only one choosing their actions.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You're both right. As @Swarmkeeper said, the play loop is in fact happening. The DM described the environment, the players declare what their PCs do, and then the DM narrates the results. You are correct that the DM is in fact choosing actions and acting outside of that play loop for his NPCs

 

[Maxperson]

No, it does not, it says: "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

So no, not only combat.

Actually, thinking about it further. You COULD consider the DM's declaration of actions on behalf of the NPCs to be environment description, which would place it inside of the play loop.

 

[Maxperson]

If I'm not mistaken, I think he is saying that the DM choosing actions for his monsters in combat is part of "describing the environment", which is for me stretching things way beyond the intention of the play loop, especially when a paragraph specifically says that, in combat (but not only), the players are not the only one choosing their actions.

I can see that argument, though. It's definitely something that can be interpreted in both directions and I wouldn't call either person wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're both right. As @Swarmkeeper said, the play loop is in fact happening. The DM described the environment, the players declare what their PCs do, and then the DM narrates the results. You are correct that the DM is in fact choosing actions and acting outside of that play loop for his NPCs

Yeah, I think Maxperson has the right of it here. Though, the DM choosing actions for NPCs (which I agree can also happen outside of combat, though it is more structured in combat due to the turn order) is functionally very similar to the step in the play loop where the players describe what their characters do. Essentially, when the DM chooses an action for an NPC or monster, they are stepping into the role of that NPC’s or monster’s “player” for the purposes of deciding and describing what that NPC or monster does.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually, thinking about it further. You COULD consider the DM's declaration of actions on behalf of the NPCs to be environment description, which would place it inside of the play loop.

This is how I’ve tended to think about it, but I can’t deny that it is a pretty tortured use of the word “environment.”

 

[Maxperson]

This is how I’ve tended to think about it, but I can’t deny that it is a pretty tortured use of the word “environment.”

Yeah. Like I said, I wouldn't call someone absolutely right or wrong on that one. I can see both arguments.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

OK, so an observer would see an attempted attack by the charmed person against the charmer. Got it.

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.

Were I going this route I'd allow the roll if only because even though the attack could not in this case possibly hit, it could still fumble.

That said, I wouldn't even let it get this far - I'm not shy about saying to a player "You're charmed, you've no good reason to attack this person who is your friend, and so unless you're attacking someone else why are you reaching for a weapon?"