D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

Asked and answered. More interesting to me is why you seem to care about me validating your interpretation. I've already said however you choose to play is fine by me. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

Some of these arguments do hurt my brain, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hah! So as I predicted, you are denying skills status as game elements that can form specifics that beat generals. So let's look at that. Here is a hypothetical game structure

S(s1, s2...)

Let's say S is our game's Spellcasting system - a set of connected processes. As regulated by the system, we have s1 which is a spell-instance. A few pages of rules state S, our Spellcasting system, and some parameters, definitions, and cases state s1, our spell.

Now, can s1 be a specfic game element that beats a general rule? That can be answered intuitively, and then according to what 5th ed RAW says about it. I'm curious as to your thoughts on both.

You’ve lost me. I don’t understand how what I said denies skills status as game elements that can form specifics that beat generals. They simply do not conflict with the general case here. Their function is to allow a creature to add its proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks. That is a game mechanical function, and it does not contradict the general case of the DM determining based on fictional positioning and guidance in the rules whether an action can succeed or fail and has stakes, and calling for an ability check (which may or may not have proficiency bonus added to it, if the use case coincides with that of one of the skills the creature taking the action is proficient in) if all three are true.

I also can’t parse your hypothetical at all. You’re framing it in terms so abstract and generalized as to be meaningless to me.

 

[clearstream]

If it can make the PC have to change what it thinks, feels or does, it is in fact much stronger than the suggestion spell. Can social skills make a PC intimidated(alter what it thinks or feels)? Can social skills persuade a PC to do something that the player doesn't want the PC to do(alter what the PC thinks, feels and does)?

In the context of an RPG, I understand game mechanics to afford players fiat over the narrative. Where anything might have been said, the player with say Turn Undead is entitled to say - as afforded by this mechanic I author the ensuing fiction. For me this is the wonderful thing about RPG - the crucial value obtained by adding that G to RP. The mechanics can inspire players to author fiction they might not have otherwise. The mechanics guide and validate the emergent narrative in ways that pure improv cannot achieve.

Fiat is analog: various game elements afford stronger and weaker fiat. So the fiat provided by skills is weaker than the fiat provided by suggestion. (Typically, the more ways something can be used, the weaker the fiat.) A skill only has any of the effect you are anxious about if a DM says yes and assigns inappropriate levels of uncertainty. Say for persuasion, when a creature seeks to influence Maggie to see them in a better light, a DM might say that there is a good likelihood (but not certainty) of that working out. When a creature seeks to dictate Maggie's actions, the DM can say that - whereas there was uncertainty on the former question, there is certainty on this one - it can't succeed.

 

[Charlaquin]

TBF they don't think we need to change, they accept us playing this 'wrong reading' as long as we call it a house rule, and the rest of us refuse to call it a house rule becuse we read it as in the rules.

I don’t even care if you call it a house rule or not. Play however you want, just don’t claim the rules say something they don’t say.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

and again that is my house rule... the base game is binary (yes/no) and that's fine. it still doesn't change how the game runs if you make the roll.

okay
so set a DC, there are rules for that too.

and not anything that has anything to do with if you can call for an NPC cha check

Ah, but it does if you are houseruling the “degrees of skill proficiency” then applying the results of a roll to how intimidating (for example) an NPC appears to a PC. And then expecting the player to have their PC react accordingly (within some band of reason established by your table). You claim that you can call for an NPC vs PC social ability check because it fits nicely into your house rules. It becomes convenient then for you also to ignore the rules of roleplaying on p 185 to reach your conclusion as those don’t fit nicely into your playstyle. Those rules do not say or even imply “the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and speaks within the bounds of ability check rolls.”

Suppose you had a player that had a PC with a flaw that said they were afraid of orcs for… reasons. Do you force a check in an encounter with an orc to determine what they think? If so, what if the orc rolls a 3? Is the player not able to have their PC act frightened per their flaw?

 

[clearstream]

You’ve lost me. I don’t understand how what I said denies skills status as game elements that can form specifics that beat generals. They simply do not conflict with the general case here. Their function is to allow a creature to add its proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks. That is a game mechanical function, and it does not contradict the general case of the DM determining based on fictional positioning and guidance in the rules whether an action can succeed or fail and has stakes, and calling for an ability check (which may or may not have proficiency bonus added to it, if the use case coincides with that of one of the skills the creature taking the action is proficient in) if all three are true.

Each of the skills explicitly includes provision for a check, i.e. a provision for there being uncertainty in the outcome of that which they are applicable to. They do not distinguish between PCs and NPCs on that score.

The only game rule that possibly forces them to distinguish is PHB 185. A general rule that they excuse themselves from as specifics. We can tell that this is true because if PHB 185 were blank text, then nothing in the remaining RAW would prevents an NPC making an ability check to intimidate a PC.

Seeing as they are specific game elements that beat the general of PHB 185, PHB 185 is blank text in their regard.

 

[clearstream]

It becomes convenient then for you also to ignore the rules of roleplaying on p 185 to reach your conclusion as those don’t fit nicely into your playstyle. Those rules do not say or even imply “the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and speaks within the bounds of ability check rolls.”

Due to special beats general, the p185 text is blank anywhere it would act to forestall what is expressly provided for in each skill.

 

[HammerMan]

Saying what the rules say or pointing out house rules doesn't shut down conversation. I don't have have that kind of power. As evidence of this assertion, please see the preceding 72 pages of this very thread and all the ones that follow.

it is an attempt to, Me (and others) arguing with you keeps it going.

 

[Maxperson]

In the context of an RPG, I understand game mechanics to afford players fiat over the narrative. Where anything might have been said, the player with say Turn Undead is entitled to say - as afforded by this mechanic I author the ensuing fiction. For me this is the wonderful thing about RPG - the crucial value obtained by adding that G to RP. The mechanics can inspire players to author fiction they might not have otherwise. The mechanics guide and validate the emergent narrative in ways that pure improv cannot achieve.

Agreed.

Fiat is analog: various game elements afford stronger and weaker fiat. So the fiat provided by skills is weaker than the fiat provided by suggestion. (Typically, the more ways something can be used, the weaker the fiat.) A skill only has any of the effect you are anxious about if a DM says yes and assigns inappropriate levels of uncertainty. Say for persuasion, when a creature seeks to influence Maggie to see them in a better light, a DM might say that there is a good likelihood (but not certainty) of that working out. When a creature seeks to dictate Maggie's actions, the DM can say that - whereas there was uncertainty on the former question, there is certainty on this one - it can't succeed.

I have two issues(so far) with this. First, not all DMs are going to see things in the same light. We've seen people in this thread argue that the skills can work on PCs and persuade them to do things. Having a rule that abusable isn't a good thing, which is why the rules in 5e don't support it(lack of denial is not support) and RAI is clearly that it not happen. Second, the DM isn't going to have anywhere close to the same level of knowledge about what my PC would or would not do that I do. In order for certainty or lack of it to be anywhere remotely close to accurate, the player has to be the one to decide it.

 

[HammerMan]

If 33+ years of forum discussions are any indication, no.

fair

So I'm mistaken when I read multiple posts by you indicating that you roll to see how well the orc performed his intimidation? Because I've seen multiple posts by you indicating that if the orc rolled a 3, it was a laughable attempt, but if he rolled a 22 it was a very good one. That's very different from what I just wrote.

okay except, that IS my house rule it was inquired about multi times (I have failed, failed misrable, almost but not enough) it doesn't invalidate the rules, it is just why I can't help you form your own DCs,

I came into say originally that YES you can have PC vs PC or even NPC vs PC social skill rolls, all be they most likely rare.

No. I'm reasonably certain some people have been swayed by @iserith's position in the past. At the very least he got me looking to see if there was a meaningful consequence for failure before calling for a roll. I wasn't doing that initially.

I am sure that something he argued at some point swayed someone... I am pretty sure nothing he has or will say in this thread is changing anyone's mind... and anyone who was interested but not invest left 40 page ago.

It does.

no, by raw:
If I cast suggestion and say "I suggest (is that part of the casting?) you go home and revaluate your life" you get a save, if you fail it you go home and think about it... that is it you get no choice.
IF instead I use persuasion "I suggest you go home and revaluate your life" you get to interpret and react as you will... maybe you go home, maybe you just take a moment to reconsider there, maybe you go to a brothels' or bar because you think better there.

or more likely:
The DM has an NPC cast suggestion and words it so the PC has to pay 3x more then they want for an item
The DM has an NPC intimidate a PC(now remember it has to be unclear if it will work or not no auto yes/no) and even saying the same wording

in 1 the PC HAS to pay the money, in the other the player decides what happens when his fight/flight responce kicks in

If it can make the PC have to change what it thinks, feels or does, it is in fact much stronger than the suggestion spell. Can social skills make a PC intimidated(alter what it thinks or feels)? Can social skills persuade a PC to do something that the player doesn't want the PC to do(alter what the PC thinks, feels and does)?

those skill effect them, they get to react how they will react to that stimuli... the spell says you over rider there will and force them to do what you say.