D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lyxen]

Well it's a clue as to RAI that in social interaction rules they are always described as PCs influencing NPCs.

You have exactly zero proof of this intent. And actually the RAW goes the other way:

• Insight: "Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move."
• Deception: "Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions."
• Contests: "Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's."
• DMG: "Wisdom Perceptiveness and willpower Spot a hidden creature, sense that someone is lying"
• DMG: "Charisma Social influence and confidence Persuade a creature to do something, cow a crowd, lie to someone convincingly"

So basically Insight would be pretty useless if it could be used only against PCs, because it's the one resolution mechanic that is used in Deception vs. Insight.

So, extremely clearly, the game expects a PC to be able to use his insight to detect the lie told by the deception of a monster/NPC, therefore Charisma checks can be used vs. PCs.

 

[Lyxen]

And another example, bargaining/bartering/haggling, is usually handled through Charisma (persuasion). Whether buying / selling /bartering from/with a NPC, it clearly falls within the scope of "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other. Use a contest if a character attempts something that either directly foils or is directly opposed by another creature’s efforts. In a contest, the ability checks are compared to each other, rather than to a target number."

So unless your PCs only barter with each other, you have another clear example of an NPC using a social Charisma check against a PC.

 

[clearstream]

Well it's a clue as to RAI that in social interaction rules they are always described as PCs influencing NPCs.

The RAW frequently addresses itself to PCs, even on subjects where there has been no debate on their application by NPCs.

 

[clearstream]

Well it's a clue as to RAI that in social interaction rules they are always described as PCs influencing NPCs.

I'm not sure if this is a perfect case, but consider text like

You can communicate however you are abIe, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object ar feature of the environment for free, during either your move ar your action. For example. you could open a door during your
move as you stride toward a foe, ar you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

Similar language, but doesn't imply solely you, the player though, right? NPCs can communicate, yes? They can open doors etc

 

[Lyxen]

And also, from the doppleganger: "While reading the target's mind, the doppelganger has advantage on Wisdom (Insight) and Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion) checks against the target." Obviously, dopplegangers only fight other monsters, or use that power only against other NPCs/Monsters...

Or the Icewind Kobold: "Three kobolds in cold weather gear can pass themselves off as a clumsy human with a successful group Charisma (Deception) check, the DC of which equals the onlooker’s Wisdom (Insight) check result." But not against PCs ?

Or the Elder Brain: "The elder brain can also make a Charisma (Deception) check with advantage to deceive the target’s mind into thinking it believes one idea or feels a particular emotion. The target contests this attempt with a Wisdom (Insight) check." But not against PCs ?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This seems to be the argument against:

Can a NPC influence a PC via a social skill?
The result is not uncertain, so the check is not made. I.e. they cannot influence the PC.
Why is the result not uncertain? Because the NPC cannot influence a PC via a social skill!

It is completely circular!

 

[Aldarc]

What would an NPC influencing a PC via a social skill look like in the context of 5e D&D?

 

[Charlaquin]

Previously, it seemed you bestowed a kind of inviolable certainty on things falling within the definition of roleplaying.

No, that’s why I kept invoking specific beats general when you tried to hold up Charm Person as a counter-example. Charm Person is a spell, which has a more specific resolution procedure than the general one involving ability checks, so where it contradicts those rules, specific beats general gives it precedence.

You argued that for a DM to be working within the rules required that DM to have a basis for their judgments as to uncertainty. It occurs to me to that for consistency you ought to believe that to be working within the rules a DM must also have a basis for their judgments as to stakes? Is that right? Or is there a lack of parity in those requirements?

The rules aren’t very specific on what constitutes stakes, so it’s harder to find support in them for formulating a judgment about stakes. But certainly I don’t think they support a DM in calling for a check that has no stakes.

Anyway, as it turns out, that certainty is often violated within the game rules. Thus, within the game paradigm, a DM is justified to say that things falling within the definition of roleplaying can be uncertain.

Sure. Though I’m not sure it particularly matters. The resolution procedures for spells and the class and monster features you’ve called out as breaking the roleplaying rule don’t particularly care about the certainty of the action.

So far as I can tell, you now say that only some instances of uncertainty count. You appear to say that a DM is justified in judging an attempt uncertain only if it meets the criteria for those instances. And you list criteria which if I have them correctly largely amount to specificity. A specific enough rule can form an exception. I think this is a much better argument than the uncertainty argument, because for one thing it doesn't leave unexplained why we don't have a similar test for stakes.

In summary, it turns out that it wasn't the uncertainty that was at issue, but meeting the criteria to form an exception that was. That is why I said you have shifted the argument. It now seems that if only social skills would meet the criteria to be a suitable instance, then a DM will be justified in calling for a check.

This is where things get tangled. The RAW on calling for checks doesn't ask for a DM to consider specificity. I think I understand your reasoning here, but let's try and spell it out

1. To call for a check, there must a be a chance of failure
2. For all things falling within the definition of roleplay, there is no chance of failure
3. Some game mechanics introduce a chance of failure to things falling within the definition of roleplay
4. Luckily, they are exceptions to the putative general rule (actually a definition) and therefore avoid the test altogether

I think this would more closely resemble my argument if you cut 3 (because it’s irrelevant) and change 4 to “luckily, there are actions that, in exception to the general action resolution mechanic, don’t require a check to be made to be successful, and therefore avoid the test altogether.

This is a nice piece of bootstrapping! Taking it on face value, we can simply say that the social skills are sufficiently specified. Who do the game rules then endorse? Neither. No matter how you may feel, there is nothing in the rules that supports your definition of 'specific enough.'
We can make arguments from consequence in play, preference, what we understand to be norms, but you need to produce RAW additional to the above to support any claim that a game mechanic like deception is not specific enough.

Deception specifically calls for a check making it clear that a DM is justified in doing so. That particular forms an exception to any general rule.


Again, the DM is encouraged to call for a check. The particular here overrides any general elsewhere.


Rather than state the obvious, I'd prefer to highlight that including our conclusions in our premises will drive doubts that the particular of each social skill forms a good enough exception to the possible general rule.

Some questions worth asking are: Where is the RAW that tells us what is specific enough? Where, is the RAW that says it must be a spell to be specific enough? Or that it must reference a condition?

Your argument here is treating the degree of specificity as the issue, which as I’ve said to you in an earlier post, it is not. The issue is the order of operations. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, which occur after uncertainty has been established, so the outcome of an ability check cannot justify its own uncertainty, because an ability check requires uncertainty to be made in the first place, and the effects of a successful ability check can’t be applied if the ability check is never made. Spells and certain class features and monster features sidestep the question because they have more specific action resolution procedures that contradict the general action resolution rules requiring uncertainty.

 

[Charlaquin]

This seems to be the argument against:

Can a NPC influence a PC via a social skill?
The result is not uncertain, so the check is not made.

Correct.

Why is the result not uncertain?

Because the player decides their character’s actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well it's a clue as to RAI that in social interaction rules they are always described as PCs influencing NPCs.

I don’t necessarily think it is. The rules in the player’s handbook are generally addressed to players, so it’s to be expected that examples of rules being applied would be framed in terms of the player perspective. It’s telling the player when to expect the DM to ask them to make an ability check, not laying out for the DM all the instances when they should call for a check. For that kind of guidance, you would want to look to the dungeon master’s guide rather than the player’s handbook.