D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lyxen]

Because the player decides their character’s actions.

Based on information that may vary depending on the social skill result, which in turn makes the result uncertain justifying a roll.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Not at all, you can assign a monster any hit dice you want, it's just the PCs which are restricted.

The general action resolution rules (of which ability checks are a part) can be applied to monsters, yes,

It's not that it can be applied to monsters, the rules explicitly tell you that it applies to them: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

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.

The new format for spells is an option, it has not invalidated all the previous monsters spell lists.

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

Exactly.

 

[clearstream]

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

You're remembering correctly. Those rules guide when PCs use social skills on NPCs. It is offered to help a DM see how to manage NPCs that PCs hope to influence, for example discussing their attitudes and how to give them nuance.

 

[Aldarc]

@Charlaquin, let's for real go back to the OP. What if Persuasion was not about convincing a PC/NPC to do something as some sort of compulsion, but, rather, it was like the discussed framing of Stonetop? That is to say, you learn what it would take to persuade a PC/NPC (though maybe they can't be persuaded), though the NPC/PC still gets to decide. Would that not change the certainty of the outcome as per your usage? I.e., the players control the thoughts, actions, etc. of their characters?

 

[Bill Zebub]

You're remembering correctly. Those rules guide when PCs use social skills on NPCs. It is offered to help a DM see how to manage NPCs that PCs hope to influence, for example discussing their attitudes and how to give them nuance.

And there's no guidance given for how to resolve it the other way? Hmmm.

Sure, it's not "proof", but surely the presence of such a thing...in fact any thing that looked liked that...would bolster the opposing argument. All they've got is monsters with Cha skills, which have alternative explanations.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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!

Funny that you don't even reference the passage on 185, which is the root of all of this.

If you start trying to prove basic geometry theorems (about parallel lines, sum of angles in a triangle, etc.) it will also become circular. You need a starting point, a basic axiom that you assume but can not prove.

The "PC's make their own decisions" theorem is built upon the text of page 185*. If you ignore it, you're going to have a hard time reconstructing the proof.

But I think you know that.

*Which, admittedly, reinforces my own deeply held beliefs.

 

[Charlaquin]

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!

No, it exists because of the order of operations.

As a thought experiment, let’s assume that it was possible to impose the Frightened condition on a creature with a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check.

A character (doesn’t really matter if it’s a PC or NPC) wants to frighten a monster, and doesn’t have any spells that can do so or doesn’t want to spend the spell slots. So they declare “I try to frighten the monster by acting all scary.” Since there is not a specific rule for how to resolve this action, the DM falls back on the general action resolution mechanics. Can this action succeed? Assuming the monster isn’t immune to fear or anything and the approach of “acting all scary” is something that could indeed frighten it, yes. Can it fail? Sure, maybe the character acting all scary isn’t enough to scare the monster. Are there meaningful stakes? We’d need more context to determine that, but for the sake of argument let’s assume there are. So, the DM ought to call for an ability check to resolve this action, probably Charisma (Intimidation), and in this thought experiment, that would mean imposing the frightened condition on the monster if it were successful.

Now repeat the same thought experiment, but imagine the character is trying to frighten a PC. Can this action succeed now? Well, the goal is to frighten the PC, which is something the character feels, and is therefore decided by the player. So, if the player decides they are not frightened, then it can’t succeed. Likewise, if they decide they are frightened, then it can’t fail. So, we never reach the point in the general action resolution process where an ability check is called for, which means the effects of a successful ability check are never able to be applied.

Now let’s suppose that the character, perhaps aiming to eliminate the possibility of failure in their actions, decides to spend the spell slot and cast cause fear instead of declaring a goal and approach. Now we have a specific rule telling us how to resolve this action, so we don’t have to rely on the general action resolution rules. The spell simply says “ The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become frightened of you until the spell ends.” No need to check for uncertainty, the rule explicitly tells us that the target must make a Wisdom saving throw (unless it’s a construct or an undead).

 

[Bill Zebub]

@Charlaquin, let's for real go back to the OP. What if Persuasion was not about convincing a PC/NPC to do something as some sort of compulsion, but, rather, it was like the discussed framing of Stonetop? That is to say, you learn what it would take to persuade a PC/NPC (though maybe they can't be persuaded), though the NPC/PC still gets to decide. Would that not change the certainty of the outcome as per your usage? I.e., the players control the thoughts, actions, etc. of their characters?

Can't answer for @Charlaquin, but for me (since I'm the OP), yes. That's why I offered that as a possible resolution that might be satisfactory to all (except those who just want to argue).

 

[Lyxen]

Sure, it's not "proof", but surely the presence of such a thing...in fact any thing that looked liked that...would bolster the opposing argument. All they've got is monsters with Cha skills, which have alternative explanations.

First, there are no alternative explanations, second none of the rules discriminate between PCs and NPCs, and in any case, it's way more than proof than the alternative which has actually zero proof going for it...

 

[clearstream]

Can't answer for @Charlaquin, but for me (since I'm the OP), yes. That's why I offered that as a possible resolution that might be satisfactory to all (except those who just want to argue).

My interest in the debate is strongly aligned to your OP. I am curious how symmetrical skills can look in 5th? Do they already exist? What sorts of objections are likely?