D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

I don’t think you actually disagree with us any more then. Remember, this entire thread has never been about what the rules allow the DM to do (which is literally anything they want), but what they support the DM in doing. Is that a fruitless thing to argue about? …well, yeah. I don’t understand why anybody who disagrees about what the rules do or don’t support even cares.

If you believe it is fruitless, why are you so attached to your position?

RAW supports a DM in doing literally anything they want. They allow a DM to take into account what will produce the most satisfying play, in exercising that power.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you believe it is fruitless, why are you so attached to your position?

I think it’s a pointless thing to argue about, but to be frank, I like arguing.

RAW supports a DM in doing literally anything they want. They allow a DM to take into account what will produce the most satisfying play, in exercising that power.

No, RAW allows the DM to do whatever they want, but there are some things the rules and guidance advise the DM to do, and some things they don’t. The former is what I say is “supported,” and the latter is what I say is not. I’ve been pretty clear about this throughout the thread.

To reiterate an example I used earlier, the RAW supports the DM in ruling that the effect of the fireball spell is to do 8d6 damage to each creature that fails a Dexterity save within a 20 ft. radius sphere of a point of the caster’s choice within 150 ft. of themselves, and half as much fire damage to each creature in that area that succeeds its save. The RAW also allows the DM to rule that the effect of the fireball spell is to do 4d8 cold damage to each creature that fails a Constitution save within a 5 ft. by 120 ft. line originating from the caster and half as much cold damage to each creature in that area that succeeds its save. But they don’t support the DM in doing so.

 

[Lanefan]

"Basic" in the sense that you learn that formula in the first semester of high school physics.

Yes; until shortly after the end-of-term exam at which point you forget it forever...

 

[clearstream]

I think it’s a pointless thing to argue about, but to be frank, I like arguing.

It's reprehensible, but I'm with you!

No, RAW allows the DM to do whatever they want, but there are some things the rules and guidance advise the DM to do, and some things they don’t. The former is what I say is “supported,” and the latter is what I say is not. I’ve been pretty clear about this throughout the thread.

I was thinking about this distinction (between supported and allowed) and I feel it is a worthwhile one. It gets at the notion that a DM decision can be well or less-well justified. One problem is that it is often better justified for a DM to make decisions within RAI, than RAW. We don't need to concern ourselves with that as you have made the commitment that the yardstick is RAW, and I too have made clear I am speaking of RAW.

Thus I appreciate your move to conflate rules with guidance - seeing as that neatly includes the case that PHB 185 is guidance - but guidance isn't RAW. So as we are talking about what RAW supports or allows, we can't be including guidance.

To reiterate an example I used earlier, the RAW supports the DM in ruling that the effect of the fireball spell is to do 8d6 damage to each creature that fails a Dexterity save within a 20 ft. radius sphere of a point of the caster’s choice within 150 ft. of themselves, and half as much fire damage to each creature in that area that succeeds it’s save. The RAW also allows the DM to rule that the effect of the fireball spell is to do 4d8 cold damage to each creature that fails a Constitution save within a 5 ft. by 120 ft. line originating from the caster and half as much cold damage to each creature in that area that succeeds its save. But they don’t support the DM in doing so.

And that mirrors attempts to do things that can be resolved by CHA (Deception). Similarly to DEX (Stealth), it is supported by RAW for a DM to choose to make an ability check using CHA (Deception) for an NPC against PC passive WIS (Insight). It's up to the DM to decide if players are aware of that check (as discussed in the DMG relating to rolls behind the screen etc.) This case however damages the claim that PHB 185 creates prior-certainty.

 

[Lanefan]

We certainly can discuss the pro's and con's of each approach regardless of the rules, but there's only one thing the rules say.

There's the one thing the rules think they say.

There's the seventeen things the rules end up saying when interpreted in different ways by different people.

And this has been true since D&D has existed.

 

[clearstream]

That's actually a very interesting example. If @clearstream's position is correct, then the player literally cannot have his PC let go and fall if the DM declares the climb an automatic success. Nor could he jump off of the wall if the DM declared the jump an auto failure.

It really is an interesting example. And your cases are even more interesting in specific ways.

Letting go isn't an attempt at climbing so doesn't call for a Strength (Athletics) check. If you liked prior-certainty's insertion into the order of operations, letting go comes even before that! It doesn't enter the order of operations for abilities. However, a DM could say that for whatever reason, you are unable to let go.

A character automatically jumps their Strength in feet. That's not down to DM or player decision. However, a DM could say that for whatever reason, you are unable to jump at all.

Clearly those things cannot be true, so the player must be able to trump DM declarations of auto success or failure at least some of the time.

Not quite so clearly.

Sure. I want to climb the wall. Most of the way up I can now see that on the other side is a veritable army of enemy archers. Now I want to get down in a hurry by letting go and falling. Except the DM has declared auto success. Am I forced to complete the climb and be on top of the wall? I don't think so.

Again, your example misses its mark. Climbing uses movement and a character can decide to discontinue moving. As above, this doesn't enter the ability checks resolution process. And as above, a DM could say that for whatever reason, you are unable to stop moving.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think it’s a pointless thing to argue about, but to be frank, I like arguing.

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!

 

[Lanefan]

Wait, I don't even know what you mean by that? What are you describing? Something like this:
"I'll climb the wall."
"Ok, it's easy so you automatically succeed!"
"No! I wanted to fall! I'm declaring automatic failure!"

???

If that's not it, can you explain to me a scenario where the player declares an action, the DM declares it an auto-success, but the player actually wanted to automatically fail?

Easy: the player is trying to hide the PC's actual abilities - and for some inexplicable reason forgot to mention this to the DM ahead of time. The player wants to fail the climb check, or at least have it appear much more difficult for the C than it really is, to help prove "No, I'm not a Rogue. Never!"

I've seen this done fairly often, and done it myself, where a PC comes in to the party as one class but hides a second (or hides their actual class) until such time as the other PCs figure it out or the class gets forced into the open by in-game events. I had a Druid-Thief PC of mine come into a party once posing as a Ranger and managed to pull it off - he ran with them for one adventure and then retired with none the wiser...

 

[iserith]

I can and doo all the time, but it wont help with a discussion of RAW since I house rule all DCs. However the book has guidelines you can use RAW (I just don't)


there is an action an uncertainty and a ability score and skill you can call on

The problem is that you can't set a DC with the support of the rules because there is no DC that can be set to determine if the PC is influenced by the monster or not. Because there's no uncertainty - the player decides. What you're doing isn't an ability check. It's just throwing dice for description. "I rolled a 22 for the orc - so it looks X" as opposed to looking Y because the result was a 3 instead. Either way - as you've agreed - the player does what they want to do. Not an ability check.

 

[iserith]

There's the one thing the rules think they say.

There's the seventeen things the rules end up saying when interpreted in different ways by different people.

And this has been true since D&D has existed.

Yes, people are free to interpret the rules in all the wrong ways they want.