D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

It has merit, but doesn't settle the specificity and circularity arguments. There's no formal test for specific enough. Even if there were, your arguments remain circular in my view. That's unfortunate, I know

Eh, it’s cool. Going around and around on it was just getting frustrating for both of us, so I don’t blame you for deciding not to continue engaging with it.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, and look how many pages it took for me to get across to you that I don’t see skills or ability checks as actions. I think that’s because of this vernacular usage that treats skills as if they were actions in and of themselves - itself a holdover from previous editions where they functionally were actions. They don’t work that way in 5e and the fact that we (even the developers, as you note) still talk about them that way contributes to widespread misunderstandings of the rules.

The line as I see it could be developed to dismiss persuasion (say) as a distinct game mechanic. If so, that's cunning.

As you suspected, I didn't feel it added anything. On the one hand it leaves the circularity argument untouched, and on the other hand all that's required is that persuasion is a game element (so we're back to looking for where RAW supplies a definition of specific-enough.)

 

[iserith]

I get the feeling from a few posters that they would like to downplay skills as any kind of defined game mechanic as much as possible. I hope you can see why from my side of things that could appear to be constructive. To make your position clear then, are you saying that say an expert in History shouldn't think of themselves as skilled (natural language) in History and able to apply that skill in the ways defined in the History skill (game element).

I'm not downplaying anything. That's their role in the game. They are mechanics, but they are for the DM to use when they determine an action declaration has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. As I said in the post you're quoting, "They may also suggest some detail about your character." Thus, a player is free to think of and portray their character as skilled in history if they think that's what taking the History proficiency indicates. I would expect a player who has taken the History proficiency to try to recall lore about legends, past events, and the like when it will be useful to them. They would have a higher chance of success, generally speaking, than someone who does not have this skill proficiency, when the DM calls for an ability check.

You've repeated this a few times. I don't think it salient to this argument. It has been worthwhile to talk about elsewhere.

I think it's relevant. In order to get the whole concept down, as I see it one needs to understand all sides of it both from the rules perspective along with the DM's and the players'. It all works together.

 

[Charlaquin]

The line as I see it could be developed to dismiss persuasion (say) as a distinct game mechanic. If so, that's cunning.

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by persuasion, that’s not what I’m trying to do. Persuasion is a game mechanic. Its game mechanical function is to allow the player whose character has proficiency in it to add their proficiency bonus to any Charisma checks the DM calls for to resolve “attempt(s) to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature,” (PHB, don’t have the page number because I’m away from book and copy-pasting from D&D Beyond instead). Or, if the Skills With Different Abilities optional rule is in play, checks with any ability that the DM calls for to resolve the same actions.

As you suspected, I didn't feel it added anything. On the one hand it leaves the circularity argument untouched, and on the other hand all that's required is that persuasion is a game element (so we're back to looking for where RAW supplies a definition of specific-enough.)

I’m not sure what you mean about leaving the circularity argument untouched. To me what appears circular is using the results of a successful ability check to justify calling for an ability check in the first place. You’re reversing the order of operations in order to arrive at uncertainty you’ve already assumed.

 

[Maxperson]

If Bob is an NPC, then friendly means that the DM gets to roll on the Friendly column in the "Conversation Reaction" table under "Resolving Interactions," in the DMG, assuming the DM remembered that this section existed in the first place. This is described as "A friendly creature wants to help the adventurers and wishes for them to succeed. For tasks or actions that require no particular risk, effort, or cost, friendly creatures usually help without question. If an element of personal risk is involved, a successful Charisma check might be required to convince a friendly creature to take that risk."

There are then three simple tables (far too simple, IMO), one for Friendly, one for Indifferent, one for Hostile. Maria's Persuasion or Deception check (I'd say that Intimidation counts as doing something harmful, thus ending the charm person spell) is compared to the table, as follows:

DC 0: The creature does as asked without taking risks or making sacrifices.
DC 10: The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
DC 20: The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

So, with advantage on the roll and hopefully a decent Charisma and proficiency bonus, then going by the books there's a decent chance that Bob the merchant will be willing to at least consider handing over the item. Especially if the item isn't that expensive or rare.

And it should be noted that the above is assuming nonmagical interactions. A completely mundane individual can, by RAW, sweet-talk an NPC into taking a significant risk or making a significant sacrifice. That's without adding magic to the mix.

If Bob is a PC, then, of course, all bets are off. But a decent player will at least try to RP the discussion rather than outright refuse and say they just aren't affected.

That's one way to run it.

But with the merchant, there is cost involved. AND there the "A successful charisma check MIGHT be required..." So an equally valid way to run it is if the outcome is not in doubt, no amount of friendly or charisma is going to make a difference.

That means that even if your wizard comes up to Ebenezer Scrooge(pre-ghosts) and casts Charm Person on him, Scrooge isn't going to give him free money, friendly or not. He would still want you to succeed in getting the money you are asking for, and would very helpfully give you directions to a different money lender, but would not give it to you himself. The outcome is not in doubt. You wouldn't be getting free money from Scrooge, no matter what your persuasion ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by persuasion, that’s not what I’m trying to do. Persuasion is a game mechanic. Its game mechanical function is to allow the player whose character has proficiency in it to add their proficiency bonus to any Charisma checks the DM calls for to resolve “attempt(s) to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature,” (PHB, don’t have the page number because I’m away from book and copy-pasting from D&D Beyond instead). Or, if the Skills With Different Abilities optional rule is in play, checks with any ability that the DM calls for to resolve the same actions.


I’m not sure what you mean about leaving the circularity argument untouched. To me what appears circular is using the results of a successful ability check to justify calling for an ability check in the first place. You’re reversing the order of operations in order to arrive at uncertainty you’ve already assumed.

Yeah. I've noticed a number of posters here who are looking for the roll to represent the uncertainty, but if that was the case then nothing could be certain before the roll. That idea flies directly in the face of RAW which says to determine certainty or uncertainty prior to the roll and only call for a roll if the act is both uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. I've noticed a number of posters here who are looking for the roll to represent the uncertainty, but if that was the case then nothing could be certain before the roll. That idea flies directly in the face of RAW which says to determine certainty or uncertainty prior to the roll and only call for a roll if the act is both uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Maxperson, did your account get hacked or something? I’m not used to agreeing with you so much, it’s weird

 

[Bill Zebub]

I get the feeling from a few posters that they would like to downplay skills as any kind of defined game mechanic as much as possible. I hope you can see why from my side of things that could appear to be constructive. To make your position clear then, are you saying that say an expert in History shouldn't think of themselves as skilled (natural language) in History and able to apply that skill in the ways defined in the History skill (game element).

That's a great example. You don't "use History" when trying to recall some information. You...try to recall some information. Your proficiency in History does (or can) in fact mark you as "an Historian", and therefore you get a bonus when taking those actions.

I was going to save some of this for later tonight when I had more time, but...

1. You (where "you" could be a PC or NPC) can attempt things without proficiency. You don't need proficiency in Intimidate, for example, to try to intimidate somebody. So if the Intimidate is a button you can press, what button is the person without proficiency pressing?

2. The goal...such as intimidating somebody...doesn't even have to correlate to a skill with a similar name. You might try to intimidate somebody with raw Strength. Or intimidate them intellectually with Arcana and History. Or deceive them with Sleight-of-Hand. Or persuade them with Religion. The Cha skill names happen to correlate to several categories of manipulation that are extremely common, but we shouldn't mistake those four skills with the acts of persuading, intimidating, deceiving, etc.

3. There are other forms of mental manipulation which don't correlate well to any skill, but which a character might well attempt. "Seduce" is the obvious one. Befuddle/confuse? Sow doubt in oneself? Bait into anger? Bore (to sleep)? If a character attempts something like this, the DM might decide that an existing skill applies, but they might decide that it's a raw Charisma roll, or even another attribute entirely.

The point of all of this is that skills are not abilities. They serve two roles:
1) To add some color to "what your character is good at"
2) To add a bonus to your attribute check when attempting a task for which the DM asks for a dice roll to resolve uncertainty.

Ok, more later. I am summoned.

 

[iserith]

1. You (where "you" could be a PC or NPC) can attempt things without proficiency. You don't need proficiency in Intimidate, for example, to try to intimidate somebody. So if the Intimidate is a button you can press, what button is the person without proficiency pressing?

Alt+Intimidate.

 

[Charlaquin]

Alt+Intimidate.

I was thinking /intimidate, but I guess that would be in 4e amirite?