D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

@clearstream In all the challenges of "our" interpretation of these rules, I'm not sure we've been informed of how things run at your table. Then again, there have been many pages and long posts so I might have missed it. Care to shine a light (or cast light again, as the case may be) on how you run things?

 

[Charlaquin]

So the obvious thing to say about that is to notice all the specificity that is associated with skills. As @Maxperson touched on a few posts up-thread, and as @Bill Zebub put at issue, it's possible that RAW offers no means to tell which parts of RAW are more specific. So I am taking the following view

1. For something to be considered under PHB 7, it need only be one of the things listed under PHB 7.
2. If it is one of the things listed under PHB 7, exceptions are only formed where there is actual conflict.
3. A mark of a general rule, is that it applies generally - to multiple aspects of the game. The more aspects it applies to, the more general it is. The clue is in the name. The least requirement for something specific is that it doesn't apply to everything.

How does that cash out?

1. The PHB 185 RAW is an element of the game, so it must be considered under PHB 7.
2. If I believe 185 conflicts with the social skills, then I am saying that exceptions can be formed in its relation.
3. "Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game..." it's hard to see what could be more general than that. PHB 185 is a general rule. Agreed?

You seem to want the test for skills to be about how they work, but that is not what PHB 7 asks for. It asks only whether skills are a game element? That is something you have already conceded. As game elements, they can create an exception to how the rest of the game works. So even if the game works the way you say it does, skills as game elements can ignore that where it conflicts with the RAW specific to them. And the RAW specific to them is not all of the text relating to ability checks, it is only their text.

Yep, this logic is all sound. My contention is not that skills aren’t game elements or that they can’t form exceptions to other rules. My contention is that nothing in the rules for skills contradicts the rules for determining whether or not an action should be resolved via an ability check - in fact, the rules in the Using Ability Scores section - the very same rules which define skills as proficiency in a subset of ability checks, reiterate that uncertainty is necessary in order for an ability check to be called for.

I urge you to check again the PHB 7 text - maybe you will notice something there that I have not.

Again, I’ve been referencing D&D beyond, which doesn’t have page numbers, but I’m assuming you’re referring to this rule:

Specific Beats General​

This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

You know where the Using Ability Scores section I’ve been quoting is? Part 2. The part that this passage says the rules that govern how the game is played, which many class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break in some way, are especially found.

I dare say, this quote even provides us with the guidance others have been asking for to determine which rules are more general than others. Is it a rule that governs how the game is played, such as those found in sections 2 and 3? Probably a general rule. Is it a racial trait, class feature, spell, magic item, or monster ability? Probably a specific rule. The addition of the criteria “game element” does make this distinction fuzzier, but skills are a part of the rules for using ability scores, which are general rules of the game found in chapter 2. Moreover, they do not in any way contradict the rules for how to determine if an ability check is called for. They only determine if proficiency bonus can be added to an ability check.

What do you think PHB 7 asks for, more than that they are simply a game element?

Nothing. This line of attack doesn’t even work against my argument because it relies on a conflict between the specific rules for skills and the general rules for ability checks, which does not exist.

That might matter if the actual RAW - the specific text in the skills - did not authorize the DM to call for a check. Seeing as it does, there is a conflict that must be decided in favour of the more specific. PHB 7 is on a similar power level to Rule 0. It affords exceptions to the way the game otherwise works. If I did not see those words in the RAW - in the social skills - saying that a DM can call for a check, then I would likely come down on this in a different place. There would then be no specific contained in the skill game elements that conflicted with the PHB 185 general.

Am I to assume you’re taking text like “Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard” as authorization for the DM to call for such a check, regardless of whether the character’s attempt to conceal themselves from their enemies, skink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard can fail and is uncertain? This doesn’t work because a Dexterity (Stealth) check is simply a Dexterity check (which is subject to the rules for making ability checks, including the provision that the action requires a chance of failure and uncertainty), to which the player or DM can add the character’s or monster’s proficiency bonus if the character or monster is proficient in the Stealth skill. In other words, what this text is authorizing is not the DM to call for a check, but the player to add their proficiency bonus to a check if the DM calls for one to resolve the action in question.

 

[Nefermandias]

To add to this: Per RAW, ability checks are only needed when uncertainty is present, that's what the book says and there's no debate here.

Now, since the DM is the one that determines wheter any given action's outcome is uncertain or not, we can imagine a campaign played from lvl 1 to lvl 20 in which an ability check is never called for and that would still be RAW.

As much as I love the addition of the skill system back in 3e, it did come with the downside of making people believe that skills are like buttoms you have to push. I have seen DMs, especially new ones, asking for rolls for pretty much every action the PCs attempted, no matter how trivial or unconsequential and that bugs me to no end.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Their game function does not in any way conflict with the rules for determining if an ability check needs to be made.

And that point is key, although @clearstream doesn't seem interested in acknowledging or addressing it. For there to be a general vs. specific ruling, there needs to be a conflict between two rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At out table, I'm giving the player the stakes before they roll. They describe an intimidating action and their goal which, in this case, is to get the orc to run. I, as DM, determine that the outcome will be uncertain and tell the player what happens on a success and what happens on a failure. The success state should be somewhat related to what the player wanted their PC to accomplish. If it is something completely different b/c you, as DM, don't think their goal is possible, then you might as well say that the outcome is certain and declare that the action fails. The orc punching the fighter on a successful ability check for the fighter is... not something I would pull on a player. That is most definitely not a success.



Understood.


See above - you called for roll even though you, as DM, knew the fighter could not accomplish their goal. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.


What does "the PC determined that the effect was out of line" mean? I'm not picking up on your short hand here.

And, just a side comment here, while were on the topic. Several of us have tried to understand your playstyle. Yet I don't see a similar effort on your end. Do you understand our playstyle at all?


I'm not into adjudicating by feel when it comes to rolling dice. The players deserve to know what means what before getting into situations that could be bad for their PC. If they still go for it, that's on them. If I don't give the stakes and the PC suffers b/c of how I "read" a roll result in the moment, that potentially leads to "gotcha" situations - inadvertent or otherwise.

Yes, I very much agree with this. If you're rolling the dice you should actively worry about failing. It could be as simple as the wasted time discussed up thread, and using your action during combat would fall into that category.

But when the consequence of failure isn't obvious, the stakes should be laid out clearly. Even if the player has already declared the action, I think it's fine to say, "Ok, but you are going to have to roll X for that, and if you fail, Y. Do you still want to do it?"

 

[Bill Zebub]

As @Maxperson touched on a few posts up-thread, and as @Bill Zebub put at issue, it's possible that RAW offers no means to tell which parts of RAW are more specific.

Oh you ARE reading my posts! At least when I acknowledge a point of logic you may find useful.

But as long as I have your attention, let me ask you for the 4th time: who gets to decide whether or not an NPC action declaration (of the sort we have been considering) is an auto success or auto failure?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes, I very much agree with this. If you're rolling the dice you should actively worry about failing. It could be as simple as the wasted time discussed up thread, and using your action during combat would fall into that category.

But when the consequence of failure isn't obvious, the stakes should be laid out clearly. Even if the player has already declared the action, I think it's fine to say, "Ok, but you are going to have to roll X for that, and if you fail, Y. Do you still want to do it?"

 

[clearstream]

I dare say, this quote even provides us with the guidance others have been asking for to determine which rules are more general than others. Is it a rule that governs how the game is played, such as those found in sections 2 and 3? Probably a general rule. Is it a racial trait, class feature, spell, magic item, or monster ability? Probably a specific rule. The addition of the criteria “game element” does make this distinction fuzzier, but skills are a part of the rules for using ability scores, which are general rules of the game found in chapter 2. Moreover, they do not in any way contradict the rules for how to determine if an ability check is called for. They only determine if proficiency bonus can be added to an ability check.

The RAW for skills asserts that the DM might call for a check. Let's test that for conflict against PHB 185.

• PC vs NPC - DM might call for a check. No conflict. The DM can say there is a check, or can say there is not a check.
• NPC vs PC - DM might call for a check. Conflict. Supposing PHB 185 prevails, the DM cannot say there is a check.

Might includes the possibility of, but according you you PHB 185 would make it impossible for DM to call for a check in the case of NPC vs PC.

Nothing. This line of attack doesn’t even work against my argument because it relies on a conflict between the specific rules for skills and the general rules for ability checks, which does not exist.

Were there no conflict, I would not have made the argument. However, per RAW, there is a conflict.

 

[clearstream]

To add to this: Per RAW, ability checks are only needed when uncertainty is present, that's what the book says and there's no debate here.

Per RAW, ability checks are only needed when the DM determines that uncertainty is present.

Now, since the DM is the one that determines wheter any given action's outcome is uncertain or not, we can imagine a campaign played from lvl 1 to lvl 20 in which an ability check is never called for and that would still be RAW.

Note that I am not arguing that the DM must call for a check, only that they have the authority and blessing under RAW to do so. Even for social skills.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The RAW for skills asserts that the DM might call for a check. Let's test that for conflict against PHB 185.

• PC vs NPC - DM might call for a check. No conflict. The DM can say there is a check, or can say there is not a check.
• NPC vs PC - DM might call for a check. Conflict. Supposing PHB 185 prevails, the DM cannot say there is a check.

Might includes the possibility of, but according you you PHB 185 would make it impossible for DM to call for a check in the case of NPC vs PC.


Were there no conflict, I would not have made the argument. However, per RAW, there is a conflict.

Completely flawed reasoning.

If the player says it's an automatic failure, or an automatic success, then the DM will not call for a check.

If the player says it's uncertain, the DM will call for a check.

Therefore, with player authority over auto success/failure, the DM might call for a check. It depends on whether the player allows it to proceed.