D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

The passage you quote also explicitly states it's part of the play loop, and even mentions the "chance of failure" and "uncertain outcome". I will ask you yet again: who determines if the outcome is uncertain, when it's an NPC acting on a PC?

The RAW mandates that the DM might call for a check. It's DMs judgement. In the DMG there is guidance for the DM. Normally, walking across an empty room doesn't need a check. Normally...

The 'middle path' advice encourages a DM to sometimes decide something automatically succeeds, or is an impossibility. It's up to the DM.

It's possible that a great deal of how a good DM ought to rule is being conflated with how per RAW a DM must rule...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Spellcasting has a general system, right? The overarching spellcasting rules that regulate spell use. That system might not include exceptions to PHB 185. Yet, as already agreed, individual spells can overrided PHB 185.

Similarly, ability checks have a general system. The overarching rules that regulate ability use. That system might not include exceptions to PHB 185. Yet a distinct game element - the Deception skill say - can be a specific that beats PHB 185 general.

Note that in saying that skills are a game element, I am looking at the RAW. I am seeing that there is a title, instructions and examples. I am noticing that characters can have them - independently each from the other - proficient or even expert.

Or would you like to say that skills are not a game element? Because that fact alone is sufficient to engage PHB 7. The rest is lengthy argumentation that has no bearing.

How are examples of the ways the abilities might be used "specific" uses? "The DM might call for a check" does not contradict the auto success/fail determination phase, so it doesn't negate it. The text would have to read, "An automatic success or failure is not possible when trying to intimidate a vizier with a broken bottle" or something like that.

I mean, hellz, the most specific thing in those examples is the word "you", in text directed at players. So if you want to extract unintended meaning, NPCs can't even use them.

No, I'm not arguing that's really what it means, but come on, man, you can't seriously think "the DM might call for a check" means "the result is always in doubt, removing the need for Step 1 of the play loop."

Only if you engage circular reasoning is that salient.

How so? Explain the circle. I genuinely don't know what you mean.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's true that there are cases where it's not possible to tell which is the more specific. This is not such a case, but they do exist.

For it to be such a case, PHB 185 would need to only apply to skills. I mean, I'm actually kind of interested in that idea. What do you think?

So are you arguing the roleplaying rule applies to tasks that use attribute rolls, but if it's an attribute roll plus a proficiency bonus due to skill proficiency, it no longer applies?

 

[HammerMan]

And I would argue that a rule that very specifically gives a player the right to determine how his character thinks and feels is more specific than the general rule about ability checks, so even if we accept that argument, it still loses.

can't the reverse be said...

It can be argued that a rule that very specifically gives about ability checks is more specific than the general rule a player the right to determine how his character thinks and feels, so even if we accept that argument, it still loses

 

[Bill Zebub]

The RAW mandates that the DM might call for a check. It's DMs judgement. In the DMG there is guidance for the DM. Normally, walking across an empty room doesn't need a check. Normally...

The 'middle path' advice encourages a DM to sometimes decide something automatically succeeds, or is an impossibility. It's up to the DM.

It's possible that a great deal of how a good DM ought to rule is being conflated with how per RAW a DM must rule...

Could you PLEASE address my question about the auto success/fail determination? Are you arguing to skip that step when an NPC attempts an action that invokes a skill? Or what?

This line of argument does not depend on the roleplaying rule, or the general/specific rule. It's about the applicability of the play loop to NPC actions.

 

[Lanefan]

sort of grey area. I have NEVER done so but again I can imagine a corner case where I could have, it just would be so weird that I can't imagine it coming up. The other end though, the auto fail I know has come up...

REAL GAME EXAMPLE: a 9th level party of 5 PCs and an NPC controlled by a player (sidekick/apprentice) go to walk into clearing... 6 kobolds pop up from ambush and the lead one pulls a rusty old knife (the others all have short bows that look like they have seen better days) he puffs his chest trying to be intimadating but really you will have to fight the urge to laugh as he says in his squaky shaky voice "Stop 2 silver each or else you can't pass"

as you can see I had him "trying to be intmidating," and ruled it failed "You have to fight the urge to laugh"

Counter-example, also from an actual game and strikingly similar - only with a much different outcome:

Party of half a dozen PCs averaging 8th-9th level and loaded with magic is trekking through a forest. They're already on edge as I-as-DM had played up the danger aspect, but they haven't yet faced any actual threats. A single Kobold steps out from behind a tree, levels a crossbow at the party, and squeaks "Stand and deliver!" as loudly and impressively (not very!) as it can.

Immediate result: two PCs dove for cover in different directions. A third jumped straight up then let his flight ability carry him higher. A fourth cast a self-affecting defensive spell. The others were too far back to see what was going on.

And all this because I specifically didn't say anything about having to fight the urge to laugh. I just narrated what the Kobold did and then let the players/PCs react as they would.

Once they realized there really only was just the one Kobold, much laughter did then ensue...

 

[HammerMan]

The RAW mandates that the DM might call for a check. It's DMs judgement. In the DMG there is guidance for the DM. Normally, walking across an empty room doesn't need a check. Normally...

do you know how paranoid I would have gotten back in 2e or 3e if a DM asked for a dex check to walk across a room...

such a funny idea could have been an entire 3 hour ordeal out of game as players carefully described step by step what they did...

 

[Charlaquin]

The RAW mandates that the DM might call for a check. It's DMs judgement. In the DMG there is guidance for the DM. Normally, walking across an empty room doesn't need a check. Normally...

The 'middle path' advice encourages a DM to sometimes decide something automatically succeeds, or is an impossibility. It's up to the DM.

It's possible that a great deal of how a good DM ought to rule is being conflated with how per RAW a DM must rule...

Remember that we are not arguing about what is or isn’t allowed by the rules, because literally anything the DM wants to do is allowed by the rules. We are arguing about what the rules support. Not what the DM must do, but what the rules recommend they ought to do.

I’ll also remind you that I have already conceded @Lyxen ’s very good point that, while the middle path is the only approach to action resolution without any listed drawbacks, one could still read that section as nonetheless supporting a DM in using the rolling with it or ignoring the dice approaches, while cautioning that they do have drawbacks.

 

[HammerMan]

Counter-example, also from an actual game and strikingly similar - only with a much different outcome:

Party of half a dozen PCs averaging 8th-9th level and loaded with magic is trekking through a forest. They're already on edge as I-as-DM had played up the danger aspect, but they haven't yet faced any actual threats. A single Kobold steps out from behind a tree, levels a crossbow at the party, and squeaks "Stand and deliver!" as loudly and impressively (not very!) as it can.

Immediate result: two PCs dove for cover in different directions. A third jumped straight up then let his flight ability carry him higher. A fourth cast a self-affecting defensive spell. The others were too far back to see what was going on.

And all this because I specifically didn't say anything about having to fight the urge to laugh. I just narrated what the Kobold did and then let the players/PCs react as they would.

Once they realized there really only was just the one Kobold, much laughter did then ensue...

oh yeah, I will take you and raise you the outcome... they paid the damn Kobolds 2 gold (since they didn't have the 12sp) and told them to keep the change and good luck not biting off more then they can chew...then kept walking.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Counter-example, also from an actual game and strikingly similar - only with a much different outcome:

Party of half a dozen PCs averaging 8th-9th level and loaded with magic is trekking through a forest. They're already on edge as I-as-DM had played up the danger aspect, but they haven't yet faced any actual threats. A single Kobold steps out from behind a tree, levels a crossbow at the party, and squeaks "Stand and deliver!" as loudly and impressively (not very!) as it can.

Immediate result: two PCs dove for cover in different directions. A third jumped straight up then let his flight ability carry him higher. A fourth cast a self-affecting defensive spell. The others were too far back to see what was going on.

And all this because I specifically didn't say anything about having to fight the urge to laugh. I just narrated what the Kobold did and then let the players/PCs react as they would.

Once they realized there really only was just the one Kobold, much laughter did then ensue...

AWESOME.

That's exactly what I was talking about upthread: you don't need dice rolls, because the players have doubts about the situation. It even cost them a 3rd level spell slot.

But if one player said, "I think it's just a kobold, I'm not going anywhere," that's 100% fine. What would be the point about rolling dice to force them to be intimidated?

Especially when the dragon lands a moment later.