D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

if it was clearly written, and then explained for 100pages you would have proven something... but it is obvuisly not clear.

People argue against clearly written things all the time. Lots of them. Dispute doesn't make them right, nor does it make it unclear.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

Good. I appreciate that.

and yet you have shown no evidence we are wrong, especially when you guys keep pushing and nothing has changed in 100 pages.

You have this backwards. You need to show evidence that you are right. So far, you have not done a great job of "showing the math". Show us where the rules explicitly detail, in actual words, how an ability check result gives the DM and players the degree of any particular result. Not just success/failure, but that the number on the dice means how well as task was accomplished. In other words, where it tells us that, for example, a high roll means the orc was terrifyingly intimidating and a low roll means the orc was laughably inept. Where are these rules and guidance?

Hint: it is not the DC. The DC is a number which must be matched or beaten to succeed at an ability check. The fact that there are no critical successes or critical failures should also clue a reader in to the fact that the number on the dice does not give us any type of degree by the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

People argue against clearly written things all the time. Lots of them. Dispute doesn't make them right, nor does it make it unclear.

so then what? you think some % of enwrolders are wrong? would it not be easier for you to just come to terms with everyone doesn't agree with your reading of it?

 

[Maxperson]

so then what? you think some % of enwrolders are wrong?

Yes.

would it not be easier for you to just come to terms with everyone doesn't agree with your reading of it?

I have. I fully accept that there are a number of people misinterpreting that rule.

 

[Faolyn]

Why can't there be both people who fidget in general and people who fidget only when lying? Is that not a thing?

Of course there can be. But not when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying" and using that across the board. This is why I specifically called out other options, like saying "you've noticed that this person fidgets when they lie."

And now that I think about it, when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying," that's telling me what my player thinks: you're saying that my character views fidgeting as a sign of being a liar.

In the case of that specific NPC in the example after a successful Wisdom (Insight) check to reveal that NPC's lack of truthfulness, yes. I also said the NPC was stammering in the example you're misconstruing and using to obfuscate. Not a good look in my view.

Yes, it's also not good to conflate stammering with lying.

But again, this is what people are calling pixel hunting. Most DM's I've played with over the decades are more than willing to use things like fidgeting, stammering, or whatever as character traits, ways to make NPCs stand out and feel more real. You're using them as traits we're supposed to notice and pick up on to determine who is important to the adventure.

Again, you're asserting something I did not say and twisting my words to suggest something I don't believe. That is not cool.

As well, nobody at my table would say they're "rolling Insight." Players don't ask to make ability checks.

Some players do. Maybe not at your table, but some do.

Plus, isn't that sort of acting out of character since they aren't declaring actions from the perspective of their characters in the context of the game world? That seems rather immersion-breaking for those of us (like you and me) who care about immersing themselves in the game. Is that what they do at your table? If so, I'd like to hear more about how you're able to maintain immersion with that sort of thing, but not when someone chooses not to have their character act intimidated in a way that is inconsistent with previously established characterization.

Easy: One is a player moving OOC to discuss an in-game event with the DM. Another is a player who is acting OOC while still playing in-character. Incredibly different things. I don't know how you don't see that.

In any case, I noticed you didn't address how your character is disadvantaged by this.

Easy: you're expecting me to remember something, and if I can't, then my character is out of luck.

Tell me, would you let me call for an Insight check out of the blue, if there wasn't anything that I the player could pick out--like a fidget or stammer--as being suspicious? I'm guessing no, because you apparently don't allow your players to call for checks. Would you point it out every time this NPC fidgeted or stammered? "Hey, Faolyn, this guy is acting strangely, hint hint"?

Or would you wait for me, the player, to pick up on the hint myself? If it's this, then my character is disadvantaged by your DMing style.

Luckily my ability score bonus and proficiency bonus more than make up for it.

No, no they really didn't. Not in this case.

 

[HammerMan]

You have this backwards. You need to show evidence that you are right.

sigh, we quotes the rules on checks, we quoted rules on individual skills we quoted the MM has these social skills

I then went through Iseriths criteria showing it... what else would you like?

So far, you have not done a great job of "showing the math".

Okay, what will it take to get you to understand we are not house ruling but interpreting the same rules you are just differently?

Show us where the rules explicitly detail, in actual words, how an ability check result gives the DM and players the degree of any particular result.

Okay lets start with

Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.

A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30.

Each ability also has a modifier, derived from the score and ranging from -5 (for an ability score of 1) to +10 (for a score of 30). The Ability Scores and Modifiers table notes the ability modifiers for the range of possible ability scores, from 1 to 30.

then move to

Characters have a proficiency bonus determined by level, as detailed in "Step-By-Step Characters." Monsters also have this bonus, which is incorporated in their stat blocks. The bonus is used in the rules on ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls.

then to

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. 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.

so we have monsters and NPCs have the same stats and prof bonus as PCs, and use the same subsystems. there are no exceptions listed.

Charisma Checks​

A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. The Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Charisma checks.

no where is there a carve out or exception for NPCs still (or monsters)

Deception​

Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions.

Intimidation​

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check.

Not just success/failure, but that the number on the dice means how well as task was accomplished.

except again, that is something I have been calling out as a house rule for 80% of this thread... you can use the same RAW with set DCs, you just have to look up the "How to set a DC"

In other words, where it tells us that, for example, a high roll means the orc was terrifyingly intimidating and a low roll means the orc was laughably inept.

nope again not going for a strawman.

Where are these rules and guidance?

above is the raw look for yourself.

Hint: it is not the DC. The DC is a number which must be matched or beaten to succeed at an ability check.

yup... by RAW you are right, so set a DC and roll for the NPC

The fact that there are no critical successes or critical failures should also clue a reader in to the fact that the number on the dice does not give us any type of degree by the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

Yes.

I have. I fully accept that there are a number of people misinterpreting that rule.

except you can not prove you are the one who is right.

 

[HammerMan]

And now that I think about it, when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying," that's telling me what my player thinks: you're saying that my character views fidgeting as a sign of being a liar.

he is nothing if not inconsistant

But again, this is what people are calling pixel hunting. Most DM's I've played with over the decades are more than willing to use things like fidgeting, stammering, or whatever as character traits, ways to make NPCs stand out and feel more real. You're using them as traits we're supposed to notice and pick up on to determine who is important to the adventure.

and again it is the
"one true way" poster not being able to do what he says he does and take in new information.

Easy: you're expecting me to remember something, and if I can't, then my character is out of luck.

again there was a LARP at GenCon (it was in the bar/tavern area) that did just that... it wasn't ANY edition of D&D though.

 

[iserith]

Of course there can be. But not when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying" and using that across the board. This is why I specifically called out other options, like saying "you've noticed that this person fidgets when they lie."

And now that I think about it, when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying," that's telling me what my player thinks: you're saying that my character views fidgeting as a sign of being a liar.

That is not telling the player what the character thinks. It's honoring their action declaration and the result of the dice and telling them what they observe, just like observing the outline of a secret door or a pressure plate for a trap. Suggesting otherwise looks to me an attempt to obfuscate to try to justify saying what the character thinks in general, which some DMs definitely like doing in my experience, especially those who have a preference for players to portray their characters in particular ways.

Yes, it's also not good to conflate stammering with lying.

But again, this is what people are calling pixel hunting. Most DM's I've played with over the decades are more than willing to use things like fidgeting, stammering, or whatever as character traits, ways to make NPCs stand out and feel more real. You're using them as traits we're supposed to notice and pick up on to determine who is important to the adventure.

Some people fidget and stammer while lying. Google that if you don't believe me. I didn't make it up to offend people who stammer and fidget for other reasons. So please spare us all any misplaced outrage.

It's not pixel-hunting. It's describing the environment. It also makes the NPCs stand out and feel more real. That you can also pick up on the clues to make informed decisions is added value. This approach does double duty in that regard.

Easy: One is a player moving OOC to discuss an in-game event with the DM. Another is a player who is acting OOC while still playing in-character. Incredibly different things. I don't know how you don't see that.

Revealing only that my approach means players stay in-character more often, particularly as they are incentivized to do so, and because they do as the rules support and don't ask to make ability checks.

Easy: you're expecting me to remember something, and if I can't, then my character is out of luck.

Tell me, would you let me call for an Insight check out of the blue, if there wasn't anything that I the player could pick out--like a fidget or stammer--as being suspicious? I'm guessing no, because you apparently don't allow your players to call for checks. Would you point it out every time this NPC fidgeted or stammered? "Hey, Faolyn, this guy is acting strangely, hint hint"?

Or would you wait for me, the player, to pick up on the hint myself? If it's this, then my character is disadvantaged by your DMing style.

Your character can attempt whatever action you want them to attempt at any time. I, as DM, adjudicate it into a result, sometimes calling for a roll. Every player at the table can do the same. You are not disadvantaged here at all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

sigh, we quotes the rules on checks, we quoted rules on individual skills we quoted the MM has these social skills

I then went through Iseriths criteria showing it... what else would you like?

Okay, what will it take to get you to understand we are not house ruling but interpreting the same rules you are just differently?

Okay lets start with

then move to

then to


so we have monsters and NPCs have the same stats and prof bonus as PCs, and use the same subsystems. there are no exceptions listed.

no where is there a carve out or exception for NPCs still (or monsters)



except again, that is something I have been calling out as a house rule for 80% of this thread... you can use the same RAW with set DCs, you just have to look up the "How to set a DC"

nope again not going for a strawman.

above is the raw look for yourself.

yup... by RAW you are right, so set a DC and roll for the NPC

I'm not following your logic fully here. The question is: How does the ability check result determine the degree of success by the rules?

You seem to be conflating ability scores and ability checks in some way. A high ability score gives a bonus in the form of a modifier. There is also the concept of a proficiency bonus. These modifiers and proficiencies certainly are added to an ability check when appropriate. They do influence the chance to succeed. I fail to see where ability scores determine the degree of the success. I see no obvious connection in the Ability Check section of the rules. This seems to be some leap, perhaps influenced by your participation in prior editions of the game. I honestly am not following your path to "this is a very clear rule" here.


Let me approach this another way to see if I understand:

A 4th level PC with an 16 Charisma and a proficiency in Persuasion would have a +5 bonus to any CHA(Persuasion) ability checks. I think you are saying this is a pretty persuasive individual and I would agree. They might be roleplayed as having great confidence in social situations.

Let's say the DM calls a Charisma ability check and the DC is 18 to persuade a stubborn guard to let the party past.

If the player, when asked to roll an ability check, rolls a total of 7 (2 on the die), are you saying this quite persuasive character is now a person who is stumbling over their words? How does this degree of failure jive with the fact that this PC is very persuasive by the virtue of their Charisma score and proficiency as you try to connect in your post above?

Isn't this result simply an indication that this guard did not buy the PC's reasoning for getting past? Like in the natural language reading of Ability Checks? In other words, the low roll indicated that the approach by the PC failed. It didn't necessarily mean this socially confident PC suddenly became tongue tied or rude. Or, in your game, is that exactly what it meant?