D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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

Two great examples to my mind are

An NPC uses deception to pass themselves off as someone they are not. I might use passive Insight for the PCs, except say the one with noble background with a strong history skill who benefits from that.

Another is where I see in official adventures advice to consider turning a TPK into imprisonment. I might use the NPCs Intimidation skill opposed by say PC Constitution (Deception) for the NPC to pry information from the prisoners.

 

[Aldarc]

Correct.

Because the player decides their character’s actions.

In general, yes. But if NPC social skills were capable of being used to influence PCs, then would that not be the specific rule trumping the general rule?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because the player decides their character’s actions.

Within the limits set by the rules! Your argument that social skills are not rules that set such limits is simply baseless. It relies on arbitrary standard of specificity, which you feel the skills do not meet. Yet you presumably don't feel so with other skills? Or do you feel NPCs can't use perception against PCs stealth or vice versa?

 

[Charlaquin]

NPCs could follow character generation rules, I don't think that there is any rule anywhere that precludes that. It's just that for me (and for the designers, apparently), it's simply too complicated and unneeded for most cases/situations. And another way to look at it is that NPCs are not limited by character creation rules and limitations.

There are even rules (I forget if they’re in the DMG or the MM because I never use them) for adding class levels to monsters. However, monsters are still built differently than PCs in a few fundamental ways, the most obvious being the rules for calculating their hit points and hit dice.

But in any case, in terms of action resolution, there is only one set of mechanics in the game, which is used by all creatures, whether it's combat actions (although once more the NPCs have the advantage as they can get legendary and lair and mythic actions), or the use of ability scores: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

The general action resolution rules (of which ability checks are a part) can be applied to monsters, yes, but it’s not true that they’re the only action resolution rules. Spells, for example, are resolved by a different process, and monsters have some special features limited uses that recover on a die roll instead of the normal short and long rest recovery - and it seems moving forward monsters’ spells may even start using this mechanic instead of the one for PC spells. So I think it’s pretty inarguable that the rules for PCs and monsters are not perfectly symmetrical. But it’s a bit moot because we’re taking here about the general action resolution mechanics, which do function the same for monsters and PCs

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

When a PC successfully intimidates an NPC, the GM is presumably supposed to in good faith to play the NPC as intimidated. So the same except than in reverse. I don't really suggest doing this, but I don't think how it would work is particularly hard to imagine.

 

[Charlaquin]

In general, yes. But if NPC social skills were capable of being used to influence PCs, then would that not be the specific rule trumping the general rule?

Social skills aren’t capable of anything but adding a creature’s proficiency bonus to an ability check. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, which require uncertainty in the outcome of the action to be applicable.

 

[Charlaquin]

Within the limits set by the rules! Your argument that social skills are not rules that set such limits is simply baseless. It relies on arbitrary standard of specificity, which you feel the skills do not meet. Yet you presumably don't feel so with other skills? Or do you feel NPCs can't use perception against PCs stealth or vice versa?

See my response to Aldarc

 

[Aldarc]

Social skills aren’t capable of anything but adding a creature’s proficiency bonus to an ability check. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, which require uncertainty in the outcome of the action to be applicable.

I'll let others follow you down your circular rabbit hole of uncertainty.

See my response to Aldarc

See post 1 in this thread. Read through the whole thread until you reach this post. Then go back and read through the entire thread until you reach this post. Lather, rinse, repeat infinfitely for all the good that will do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Social skills aren’t capable of anything but adding a creature’s proficiency bonus to an ability check. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, which require uncertainty in the outcome of the action to be applicable.

And that 'uncertainty' doesn't exist only because your circular reasoning of social ability checks not being able to affect the PCs!

If we instead assume that PCs can be thus affected, then it is obvious that uncertainty of the outcome exist, thus the check is warranted!

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Am I misremembering the section in the DMG on resolving social interaction (on my phone atm)? I thought it was also expressed this way.