D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Now these are legitimate concerns.
that’s why you should have the players claim it themselves.

100% there are pros and cons, and I can tell you from personal experience (both sides of the screen) that favoritism does happen, we found the best way to avoid it is to give group XP... (Tom did good role playing everyone get 100xp, Becky figured out the main plot by peacing together clues everyone get 1,000xp, end of combat everyone get 750xp)

I wish we were not so apsent minded, insperation does seem like a good idea, just one that doesn't work for us.

 

[HammerMan]

Let me rephrase:

When it comes to whether or not a DM should call for an NPC to make an ability check that has a possible outcome of affecting how a PC thinks, acts, or talks, you feel the rules support both prior-certainty and DM decides? The former depending upon, and the latter ignoring, the p185 guidance on roleplaying. Is that accurate?

let me step in again. Yes and No,

If you let a social skill (or any skill or roll for that matter) control what the PC/NPC thinks or acts or talks, then yes.
If you do not let social skills dictate response, just stimuli, then using them on both PC and NPC does not go against the pg185 guidance/rule.


If persuasion is to let the player know "This NPC made a persuasive argument even if I the DM can not word a persuasive argument" and the player decides how to react to it...

If intimidate is to let the player know "This NPC did things and said things that are intimidateing even if the DM can not word it" and the player decides how to react...

If persuasion is to let the DM know "This PC made a persuasive argument even if I the Player can not word a persuasive argument" and the DM decides how to react to it...

If intimidate is to let the DM know "This PC did things and said things that are intimidateing even if the Player can not word it" and the DM decides how to react...

now being consistent with your character (PC/NPC) means it shouldn't be super hard to figure out what the reactions will be most times...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

let me step in again. Yes and No,

If you let a social skill (or any skill or roll for that matter) control what the PC/NPC thinks or acts or talks, then yes.
If you do not let social skills dictate response, just stimuli, then using them on both PC and NPC does not go against the pg185 guidance/rule.


If persuasion is to let the player know "This NPC made a persuasive argument even if I the DM can not word a persuasive argument" and the player decides how to react to it...

If intimidate is to let the player know "This NPC did things and said things that are intimidateing even if the DM can not word it" and the player decides how to react...

If persuasion is to let the DM know "This PC made a persuasive argument even if I the Player can not word a persuasive argument" and the DM decides how to react to it...

If intimidate is to let the DM know "This PC did things and said things that are intimidateing even if the Player can not word it" and the DM decides how to react...

Setting aside your play preferences, can you at least acknowledge how many find that these examples do not represent ability checks based on their plain reading of the rules?

In other words, the rules for ability checks simply do not indicate that a roll of the dice determines the degree to which an action can be described before the outcome is determined. The rules for ability checks do indicate that the a roll of the dice determines the outcome of the player-described action - or, potentially, the outcome of the DM-described action if one wants to use ability checks for NPCs vs PCs.

now being consistent with your character (PC/NPC) means it shouldn't be super hard to figure out what the reactions will be most times...

Consistent by whose determination?

 

[HammerMan]

Setting aside your play preferences, can you at least acknowledge how many find that these examples do not represent ability checks based on their plain reading of the rules?

I acknowledge that @iserith has done a great job of 'showing the math' and I both understand and can see where you guys get that interpretation. I even think that it can be a fun way to play (in the right group), I just don't think it is the only valid reading of the rules.

In other words, the rules for ability checks simply do not indicate that a roll of the dice determines the degree to which an action can be described before the outcome is determined.

and again that is just plane not true. if I am climbing a building and the DM determines the DC is 13 per movement (and I have a 30ft move half for climbing so 15ft per round) and I have to climb 100ft, I roll my first 4 attempts and make the DC 13 (so 45ft) then roll anything form a 1-12 I do not advance... at some point (I think we can all agree) if I fail to make progress I am going to fall, I can't just hold myself up 45ft above the ground for hours. How well you climbed is 100% what you are checking here.

The rules for ability checks do indicate that the a roll of the dice determines the outcome of the player-described action - or, potentially, the outcome of the DM-described action if one wants to use ability checks for NPCs vs PCs.

yes the outcome of an athletics (climb) check is to climb
yes the outcome of an intimidate check is to intimidate

climbing the wall doesn't let me (player or DM) control another character (PC or NPC)
intimidating doesn't let me (player or DM) control another character (PC or NPC)

in this thread I have seen many examples of making a check allowing the PC to take control of an NPC and dictate to the DM how that NPC reacts to this social skill...I disagree.

I will go back to the lone guard, a PC wants to get by. the guard says no.
A PC can use athletics/attack to grapple or push him, but all that does is immobilize or move the guard, he can still yell for back up.
A PC can use Intimidate. but if the guard is intimidated he may still call for help (I would if I were a cop and was intimidated call for back up)

another one is a king doesn't want to give a PC a magic item to go slay the villian. The PC wants the item from the treasury.

Now both ways, roll or role play the character makes a great persuasive argument (maybe hit the DC or maybe just out of game that player can talk to DM well it doesn't matter) SO the king is persuaded that the villian needs to be stopped and that item will help, so he sends his 5 best soldiers to retrieve the item and stop the villian... end result not "so he gives me the +3 luck blade"

Now if in the above the PCs tried to intimidate the king, that might have gotten the royal guards to attack, if they tried to intimidate and failed maybe the king and the guards all laughing because they do not take the threat seriously.

making the check is not mind control, the Player states the action, the DM the reaction. The DM states the action the player states the reaction.

Consistent by whose determination?

I would guess the group of friends around the table is the answer 99% of the time, but if you stream I guess the audience too.

 

[clearstream]

When it comes to whether or not a DM should call for an NPC to make an ability check that has a possible outcome of affecting how a PC thinks, acts, or talks, you feel the rules support both prior-certainty and DM decides? The former depending upon, and the latter ignoring, the p185 guidance on roleplaying. Is that accurate?

Thank you for rephrasing.

1. If it is rules + guidelines, then neither has priority
2. If it is rules + PHB 185 (and no other guidelines), I still have a few questions to resolve, but as of this I lean toward 185 having priority
3. If it is rules alone, then DM-decides has priority

Something I am sure about relating to the 2nd case, is that specific-beats-general exceptions can come from any part of the game. PHB 7 doesn't offer any carve outs, so it includes s>g exceptions arising within the scope of ability checks. Any theory about what the rules (or rules+185) entails, that doesn't let that stand, is incorrect.

[EDIT By priority I mean prevails with the best support.]

 

[HammerMan]

Thank you for rephrasing.

1. If it is rules + guidelines, then neither has priority
2. If it is rules + PHB 185 (and no other guidelines), I still have a few questions to resolve, but as of this I lean toward 185 having priority
3. If it is rules alone, then DM-decides has priority

Something I am sure about relating to the 2nd case, is that specific-beats-general exceptions can come from any part of the game. PHB 7 doesn't offer any carve outs, so it includes s>g exceptions arising within the scope of ability checks. Any theory about what the rules (or rules+185) entails, that doesn't let that stand, is incorrect.

[EDIT By priority I mean prevails with the best support.]

the problem (or maybe how WotC wrote it) is that you can interpreted any general rule to supercied the specific rule in a specific situation.

If I wrote a rule (assume I work for WotC) that says "all Warblades add there wisdom modifier to initiative " then that is an exception to the "initiative is a Dex check" rule. if someone makes a Warblade/bard, can you then argue "it isn't a dex check anymore because you add wisdom so jack of all trades doesn't apply"?

 

[clearstream]

the problem (or maybe how WotC wrote it) is that you can interpreted any general rule to supercied the specific rule in a specific situation.

You can usually consider the number of game elements and cases the rule covers. For PHB 185 it reads that it is part of everything, therefore more general than most other rules. It gets specific on being thinks, acts, and talks, so were there a rule that covers everything a player determines for their character, then PHB 185 would be more specific than that rule, in that regard. But if the everything-a-player-determines rule applied only to say, halfling characters, that might be trickier to decide! In any case, there must be a conflict for it to matter.

If I wrote a rule (assume I work for WotC) that says "all Warblades add there wisdom modifier to initiative " then that is an exception to the "initiative is a Dex check" rule. if someone makes a Warblade/bard, can you then argue "it isn't a dex check anymore because you add wisdom so jack of all trades doesn't apply"?

Where it is silent, there it does not make any change. So as written, your Warblades add their WIS and DEX to initiative. You could have something like, Warblades use WIS instead of DEX for initiative. Jack of Trades gives half-prof to all ability checks and a wisdom check is still an ability check.

 

[Lyxen]

In other words, the rules for ability checks simply do not indicate that a roll of the dice determines the degree to which an action can be described before the outcome is determined. The rules for ability checks do indicate that the a roll of the dice determines the outcome of the player-described action - or, potentially, the outcome of the DM-described action if one wants to use ability checks for NPCs vs PCs.

From my perspective, it's not actually correct. Although yes, the dice roll does not in itself describe the quality of the result (it's binary, you either succeed or fail, there is no notion of the quality of the result obtained), the problem with your interpretation is that it assumes that the outcome was precisely described at the start of the action, which is actually not necessarily the case. Since the actual results of success of failure are (usually) not pre-determined with any precision, It is therefore totally supported by the rules to say that the actual outcome of the ability check and its description are in any case totally determined by the DM, who is therefore absolutely free to take into account the result of the dice roll to indicate the quality of the result.

It's easy to see from the description of success and failure at an ability chech:

• Success: "If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand." But as nothing here indicates how the challenge is overcome and by how much, the DM is absolutely supported to describe that success any way he chooses, including with a quality of result if he so chooses.
• Failure: "Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." Here it's even more obvious, you can even have a success through (partial) progress, but the DM can set any setback or consequence he chooses, including one based on the quality of the result.

So while the rules indicate a binary result, because that result can be described in any term the DM chooses, he is supported in doing exactly that. The rules do not set a degree, but again the game is incredibly open and actually tell that the DM chooses the degree himself according to any criterion he chooses.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, because I am not disagreeing with you. The core books contain rules, guidelines, examples, flavour text, indexical text. That's true of the DMG. Can you explain our supposed disagreement on this so that I can see what it consists of?

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you see a difference between guidance and rules. In 5e they are one and the same. There are lots of "rules" in the DMG, but all of the rules are just guidance and vice versa.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, coming back to people insisting on the RAW, I must say that, in the end, it's really the mark of OneTrueWayism, which I believe is rightly frowned down on these forums. I will also say that, to my s

I don't agree with that. I can fully argue that a clearly written rule can only be interpreted one way, while still believing and arguing that changing it to fit your group is the right thing to do, because there are thousands of different ways to play the game. One True Wayism is arguing that your way is the only right way to play the game.