D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

It’s right here. I keep quoting it to you.

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

And once again I point to your circular reasoning. You say the outcome cannot be uncertain because you draw a distinction that does not exist for these rules between PC and NPC. Once you've drawn that distinction, the outcome can't be uncertain. I am saying that these rules resist the distinction being made in the first place.

 

[iserith]

In the case of NPC to PC, what you say would make it impossible for the DM to call for a check, yet even in that case the skills RAW specifics say the DM might. Might implies is possible. In all cases. There is no conditioning for target in the skills RAW.

I think your reading requires an argument that the rules for skills are more specific in a way that involves the specific beats general rules. They aren't. Skill proficiencies are bonuses added to ability checks when applicable, nothing more. The rules for ability checks plus the rules for players deciding how their characters act are all that apply here.

 

[Charlaquin]

And once again I point to your circular reasoning. You say the outcome cannot be uncertain because you draw a distinction that does not exist for these rules between PC and NPC. Once you've drawn that distinction, the outcome can't be uncertain. I am saying that these rules resist the distinction being made in the first place.

The distinction, such as it is, is drawn by the roleplaying rule, which the rules for skills do not contradict.

 

[Nefermandias]

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


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.

So, we fully agree? I'm confused.

 

[clearstream]

This thread is just circling the drain at this point. I think that I will bow out of this thread now before my good will towards other posters goes with it.

Indeed, I think that is so. Especially as to have even reached this point we have a number of foundational points that haven't been conceded (other than for the sake of the argument.) In no particular order -

1. PHB 185 is a definition of roleplaying, not a rule. Not all text in the PHB is rules text.
2. Per RAW, it's up to the DM to decide what is certain and uncertain: there are no constraints on that.
3. The skills RAW explicitly sustains the possibility of calling for a check, without consideration for target.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the case of NPC to PC, what you say would make it impossible for the DM to call for a check,

That is what we’re arguing, yes.

yet even in that case the skills RAW specifics say the DM might.

It says the DM might call for a check when a character or monster performs the appropriate action. If the DM calls for a check when a character performs the appropriate action and does not call for a check when a monster performs the appropriate action, that is an accurate statement.

 

[clearstream]

So, we fully agree? I'm confused.

That's just it, based on what you wrote I think it likely you and I do agree. I am saying the DM can decide that something falling within say the Intimidate RAW is uncertain, without consideration for target (there's no such hedging in the Intimidate RAW.) Anything that might conflict with that is overridden by PHB 7. But just because the DM can decide something is uncertain, doesn't mean they must, or even that they ought.

 

[clearstream]

That is what we’re arguing, yes.

Indeed, your conclusions are most thoroughly stitched into your premises.

It says the DM might call for a check when a character or monster performs the appropriate action. If the DM calls for a check when a character performs the appropriate action and does not call for a check when a character performs the appropriate action, that is an accurate statement.

You do not show what you hope to show. The RAW does not say the DM might if the target is an NPC, and cannot if the target is a PC. The RAW says the DM might. You are stitching target into the RAW where it does not exist. And PHB 7 acts so that the specific - DM might - overrides anything that could prevent it being effective.

 

[clearstream]

The distinction, such as it is, is drawn by the roleplaying rule, which the rules for skills do not contradict.

Question. Would the roleplay rule, if acting the way you say, make it not true that the DM might (which isn't conditioned on target)?

By circular reasoning, you reinsert target to try and forestall DM might from being effective. That's ingenious, but also flawed. PHB 7 cannot be circumvented. If you think you have circumvented it, you are implementing it incorrectly. PHB 7 sustains the complete effect of the exception, so that it has the effect that is specified within the specific game element regardless of what may be elsewhere.

 

[Nefermandias]

That's just it, based on what you wrote I think it likely you and I do agree. I am saying the DM can decide that something falling within say the Intimidate RAW is uncertain, without consideration for target (there's no such hedging in the Intimidate RAW.) Anything that might conflict with that is overridden by PHB 7. But just because the DM can decide something is uncertain, doesn't mean they must, or even that they ought.

Both approaches are covered by the rules. The DMG clearly says you can choose between:

1 - Never rolling dice.
2 - Always roll for everything.
3 - A middle ground between free action adjucation and dice rolling.

These approaches are all within RAW.