D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

You're free to put the diaper on your baby's head, but the directions on the package do not support that.

Don't be interpetationist. All interpretations are equally valid. There's no badwrongfun parenting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

once again social skills are not mind effecting spells. not on PCs not on NPCs.

You declair an intent, and roll, but the target gets to interpret how they react... persuading someone is not always binary there are a billion choices any persuaded person could react.

You forgot an intermediate step between intent and roll: somebody decides whether or not the attempt succeeds or fails automatically. If it does, there is no roll.

In the case of a PC acting on an NPC, we all agree the DM decides.

Upthread I argued (and you seemed to largely agree) that in the case of an NPC (or PC?) acting on a PC, the targeted player decides.

 

[Maxperson]

once again social skills are not mind effecting spells. not on PCs not on NPCs.

You declair an intent, and roll, but the target gets to interpret how they react... persuading someone is not always binary there are a billion choices any persuaded person could react.

Which leads us to...

If you've persuaded me to do something and I don't have to do it, then you haven't actually persuaded me to do something and there was no point to the roll at all. The player is deciding and there's no uncertainty.

 

[HammerMan]

Spells have very specific rules for how they work Therein lies the specific vs general rule adjudication

as do skills (admitiedly like any non combat/non magic thing in 5e it is underwealming, but it is there)

I'm not asking about auto success or auto failure. Please answer the questions that were asked. Or... are you saying if they have the flaw then it is expected that they "auto fail" when an orc tries to intimidate them?

I will not answer about some hypothetical corner case. Every time I give an example I do so as wide as I can (within the bounds of the corner case that is useing skills against PCs). It would depend on what me and the player had talked about upuntil then...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

if that is the case, then no PC can use intimidate either, because by the rules the DM decides what NPCs do...

No. You are not carrying it out to the next logical step in the rules for ability check adjudication. When the DM sets a DC for an attempt to intimidate, they also set the success and failure stakes. That is when the DM decides how the NPC reacts. They act one way when there is a success on the ability check, and they act another way when there is a failure on the check.


EDIT: worth reiterating what @Bill Zebub said upthread... one doesn't "use" intimidate. They declare an action they'd like to try and, if the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, the DM calls for an ability check, perhaps with a particular proficiency (or the player is welcome to ask if one applies).

 

[HammerMan]

You forgot an intermediate step between intent and roll: somebody decides whether or not the attempt succeeds or fails automatically. If it does, there is no roll.

correct and we all agreed to this

In the case of a PC acting on an NPC, we all agree the DM decides.

yup

Upthread I argued (and you seemed to largely agree) that in the case of an NPC (or PC?) acting on a PC, the targeted player decides.

sounds good to me

 

[HammerMan]

Which leads us to...

If you've persuaded me to do something and I don't have to do it, then you haven't actually persuaded me to do something and there was no point to the roll at all. The player is deciding and there's no uncertainty.

you aren't making any sense... persuasion is not a mind effect. by your rules nobody is ever effected or it is a dominate spell and nothing in between.

 

[iserith]

Ok, so if I read the text, under the description of Intimidation:



You are saying that is specific enough to override the general rule?

Ok, let's say I agree to that. Does that mean that if the vizier is, say, glaring instead of sneering, the roleplaying rule is not overridden, because the specific case is not met?

I jest, of course, but do you see the problem with claiming that descriptions of skills are 'specific' rules?

Also, I never saw a response from you to my post #1376. Would love your reaction, if you have one.

Not to mention that the description of skills only says that's when you add the skill proficiency to the ability check the DM calls for.

 

[Aldarc]

I’m just trying to promote understanding of the rules as they are, and to point out places where these commonly reported issues people experience when playing the game don’t really arise when played as written.

 

[Maxperson]

you aren't making any sense... persuasion is not a mind effect. by your rules nobody is ever effected or it is a dominate spell and nothing in between.

You do realize that in arguing that it's not a form of mind control and the players can RP their response to the roll any way they like, you are arguing that the players have the right to declare with certainty the reaction to social skills? There's literally no point to a roll if the PC isn't forced to be intimidated or persuaded.