D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Segueing from that, a player-character could try to jump a distance beyond what they can achieve automatically, but within what they can possibly jump.

The rules don’t really specify how far a character can jump, beyond what it allows them to jump automatically. By my reading, jumping a distance greater than that would require a specific action (goal and approach), so in that case the relevant question is not “how far can the character possibly jump?” but “can the character’s approach result in them jumping far enough to achieve their goal?” and answering that question might or might not require a check. For example, the approach of trying to jump does not, in my estimation, have any possibility of succeeding in achieving the goal of getting to the moon, and so does not require a roll to resolve.

An ability check will tell us how they act in that regard, i.e. how far they jump. We could call the range they can jump a set limit, but then the player can't decide there is no uncertainty as to how their character ends up acting.

No, the act, which the player decides, is jumping. The DM determines the outcome of that action, calling for a check if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome. For example, if there’s a pit further across than the character can normally jump, using a springboard could possibly result in them succeeding in the goal of clearing the pit and could fail to do so, with the consequence of them falling into the pit, so that would require a check to resolve.

Another case under strength, is where another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming. Being pushed is deciding something about how you act, and that is called out as subject to a check.

No. You don’t decide whether another person pushes you or not. That’s something happening to your character, not an action your character performs.

 

[clearstream]

Ok. So when a player declares their character thinks, says, or does something, if there is some factor that would make that challenging (e.g. modify memory may prevent the character from thinking something, silence or zone of truth may prevent them from saying something, any number of obstacles may prevent them from doing some action or at least make it challenging to do), a check might be needed to resolve that uncertainty.

Exactly!

That is accurate, but not related to the case of an NPC (or a PC for that matter) taking an action to try to force a PC to think, say, or do something not of the player’s decision.

It's related whenever a DM decides that there is a challenge bearing on such a case. That's the only test. There is no carve-out. Something that might otherwise be certain, isn't certain when a DM decides it isn't (through the mechanism of establishing a challenge.)

 

[clearstream]

The DMG establishes ability checks as guidelines and this if further backed up by the rule in questions using the word "might" indicating that it's just advice on possible things that could be rolled.

It's all equal when it suits you, but some is more equal when that becomes important to your argument?

This is a guideline as well per the DMG, but also skips page 173 of the PHB that requires uncertain knowledge of success or failure in order to call for a roll.

Can you quote the text: I can't find any such requirement on 173.

Subject to other more specific rules/guidelines such as page 185 of the PHB, yes.

PHB 185 is part of every aspect of the game. It is equally general. Further, when one can read two rules in one way that forces a contradiction, and another way that avoids the contradiction, the second way is to be preferred. Seeing as we can do that as regards PHB 6 and PHB 185, we should prefer to do so. If someone perversely decides otherwise, they are creating a problem for themselves while saying nothing definitive about what the text entails.

Yes, but if he contradicts established rules like page 185, he is creating a house rule.

When they follow rules like PHB 6, which complements rather than contradicts 185, they are supported by the text in doing so.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My point is - and has been all along - that this agreed-on model renders social mechanics redundant, and thus they can be safely removed from the game without affecting anything.

Then you should actually be pretty happy with the 5e rules for social interaction, because the dice rolling is effectively a voluntary fallback mechanism for when a player or DM can't decide what a character they control would do, and would rather just leave it to the RNG gods.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The only circularity is that some people refuse to accept what the text says, so we have to keep repeating ourselves.

Indeed. The text clearly says that the GM decides when to call checks and what their outcomes are.

 

[Maxperson]

It's all equal when it suits you, but some is more equal when that becomes important to your argument?

People brought guidelines into this discussion like they were less than rules. I pointed out that in 5e rules and guidelines are interchangeable and equal. Then I pointed out that there are some things that are advice, like the Wizard background and the advice in the ability check section that suggest some things the DM might call an ability check for, and other things like page 185 and 174 of the PHB that are prescriptive and definitive.

My opinion is that advice is lesser to things that are prescribed or defined.

Can you quote the text: I can't find any such requirement on 173.

Sorry, 174.

"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."

That's prescriptive. It tells the DM to call for a check(not maybe or might) WHEN there is a chance of failure and the outcome is uncertain. It's not a suggestion or advice.

 

[Lanefan]

Automatic success and failure are not the same as checks, no.

Why not? Under the hood the same thing is happening - an action is attempted and resolved - with the only difference being the method of resolution (DM decides vs die roll).

I wouldn’t say they can’t have consequences, just that, unlike checks, they don’t necessarily have consequences. But, like, generally I feel like it would be weird to impose a consequence for attempting something that can’t succeed. Like, if the player says they try to jump to the moon they aren’t going to succeed so there’s no point in rolling. But it’s not like I’m going to say “ok, you jump pretty high but you don’t make it to the moon and you rake 1d6 bludgeoning damage when you land” or whatever. I’m just going to say they can’t jump to the moon and move on.

Sure, I get this - though even there, a negative consequence of trying something so outlandish might be that onlookers come to regard the jumper as a fool, which might impact other interactions down the road.

Then again, I don't buy into the notion that checks must always have a meaningful consequence for failure. If success is in itself a meaningful consequence, that's enough for me, and failure can in these cases just preserve the status quo.

 

[Lanefan]

Then you should actually be pretty happy with the 5e rules for social interaction, because the dice rolling is effectively a voluntary fallback mechanism for when a player or DM can't decide what a character they control would do, and would rather just leave it to the RNG gods.

Fine.

However, this doesn't need formal rules. A informal and self-informative roll by the indecisive party will do for this (side note: I'd like the books to give more guidance on the idea of self-informative rolls as an aid to decision-making).

Having hard-coded social skills and abilities spelled out on the character sheet and in the books just confuses the whole issue and directly leads to near-endless discussions and arguments - - - like this thread.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why not? Under the hood the same thing is happening - an action is attempted and resolved - with the only difference being the method of resolution (DM decides vs die roll).

And that, like choosing the path less traveled, made all the difference.

Sure, I get this - though even there, a negative consequence of trying something so outlandish might be that onlookers come to regard the jumper as a fool, which might impact other interactions down the road.

Perhaps one wants to actively discourage slapstick? So, yeah, trying to jump to the moon might never even attempt to happen. What else would you like to try?

Then again, I don't buy into the notion that checks must always have a meaningful consequence for failure. If success is in itself a meaningful consequence, that's enough for me, and failure can in these cases just preserve the status quo.

A check with the only consequence being “maintaining the status quo” is a check best avoided, IMO. It’s frustrating to take the time and effort to make a check and then fail to move the action forward for better or for worse. Really, why bother? YMMV.

 

[Lanefan]

I think if I was going to do a “critical fumble rule” it would really be an equipment damage rule, tied to natural 1s and possibly 20s. For example, I could see something like, “when you roll an natural 1 on a weapon attack roll, your weapon is damaged and takes [some penalty] until it’s repaired. When you are hit by a critical hit, any armor you are wearing is damaged and takes [some penalty] until it’s repaired. If it would be damaged again before being repaired, it breaks instead. If a damaged weapon or armor would become damaged again, it breaks instead and can’t be used until it’s repaired” or something like that. Like I said, it’s still a half-formed idea.

One quick suggestion: instead of having a 1 or 20 automatically cause damage, I'd give the item a saving throw (particularly if it's a magic item!) in order to reduce the frequency of damage/breakage yet still keep it as a possibility.

You'd need to come up with your own system for how these saves would work; the item-save tables in the 1e DMG might, if nothing else, be a place to start.