D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

The scope of skill is more open, yes. This doesn't somehow make it to not work at all. The game is full of stuff that requires the GM to decide what the exact outcome is. Ability checks are just one of these. Do you also think an NPC couldn't use sleight of hand to pick-pocket a PC because it is an ability check and not a spell?

Of course the NPC could pick pocket a PC. What the NPC cannot do is mind control the PC via intimidate or persuasion. The player gets to decide the result of any such attempt by an NPC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The scope of skill is more open, yes. This doesn't somehow make it to not work at all. The game is full of stuff that requires the GM to decide what the exact outcome is. Ability checks are just one of these. Do you also think an NPC couldn't use sleight of hand to pick-pocket a PC because it is an ability check and not a spell?

Would that scenario...an NPC trying to pickpocket an PC using Dexterity (Slight-of-Hand)...if successful, require the player to narrate any specific actions, or restrict what decisions the player made for their character? If no, then it's fine.

Again, you may not like using that distinction to differentiate game play, but to argue that it's not a distinction? That's just weird.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Of course the NPC could pick pocket a PC. What the NPC cannot do is mind control the PC via intimidate or persuasion. The player gets to decide the result of any such attempt by an NPC.

Agreed, although I wish you wouldn't phrase it that way because it reinforces the misconception that "intimidate" or "persuasion" are buttons that can be pressed.

If anything, it's "mind control via Charisma." You don't actually need proficiency in intimidation or persuasion to attempt the actions; they just add a little bit to the die roll.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Would that scenario...an NPC trying to pickpocket an PC using Dexterity (Slight-of-Hand)...if successful, require the player to narrate any specific actions, or restrict what decisions the player made for their character? If no, then it's fine.

Sure. They could not narrate that they pay for their drink! Also, sleight of hand could be used to fool a PC to think that an object is in another place where it actually is. So that would in effect affect how the PC thinks.

Again, you may not like using that distinction to differentiate game play, but to argue that it's not a distinction? That's just weird.

I'm not even sure what is the distinction you're talking about. First it was between spells and skills, but now it is something else.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed, although I wish you wouldn't phrase it that way because it reinforces the misconception that "intimidate" or "persuasion" are buttons that can be pressed.

If anything, it's "mind control via Charisma." You don't actually need proficiency in intimidation or persuasion to attempt the actions; they just add a little bit to the die roll.

It's charisma, but it's charisma(intimidation) or charisma(persuasion) regardless of proficiency. Everyone can do everything with regard to ability checks in 5e, some are just more skilled(proficient).

That's why I phrase it like I do. Whether you are proficient or not, it's ultimately an attempt to intimidate or persuade that potentially generates the charisma ability check.

 

[clearstream]

Outcome: The way a thing turns out; a consequence.
Result: A consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

Not pictured: “the DM calls for ability checks to inform their narration.”

PHB 5 - Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

They do that by, inter alia, deciding how to resolve their actions. Your view seems to envision that game mechanics don't inform the emergent narrative.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure. They could not narrate that they pay for their drink! Also, slight of hand could be used to fool a PC to think that an object is in another place where it actually is. So that would in effect affect how the PC thinks.

Wait, I'm not following you here. Getting their pocket picked would require the PC to buy the NPC a drink? What?

As to your second example, I gave one very similar to that up-thread, in disagreeing with @clearstream that "Intimidate" and "Persuade" were somehow special cases, or that it's even just about Charisma skills. And the hypothetical case of an NPC using sleight-of-hand to force a player to pretend their character believes an object is in a certain place is a perfect example of that.

I'm not even sure what is the distinction you're talking about. First it was between spells and skills, but now it is something else.

Sorry, I thought that small leap of logic was obvious, but I will spell it out:
1. In the first case I was talking about the distinction between a spell that has a specific, defined effect (overriding more general rules), and the default play loop, that sometimes involves ability checks, which sometimes involve skill proficiencies, and do not have specific effects defined.
2. In the second case I was talking about the distinction between NPC actions which impose a game-state effect on the PC that is narrated by the DM, and NPC actions that have some effect...not a defined mechanical condition...that the DM has made up and requires the player to narrate in a certain way.

So, no, I'm not shifting my argument, I'm giving you multiple ways to see the distinction between two categories of actions.

 

[clearstream]

Agreed, although I wish you wouldn't phrase it that way because it reinforces the misconception that "intimidate" or "persuasion" are buttons that can be pressed.

They define scopes, within which proficiency and expertise normally apply. They represent a character's focus on that aspect.

 

[Charlaquin]

The player's ability to roleplay is not unconstrained. We all agree with this. If they're restrained, their ability to declare how their character acts doesn't let their character to run around, if they're muffled, their ability to declare how their character talks, doesn't let them speak.

That in no way constrains the player’s ability to decide how their character thinks, speaks, or acts; it only introduces a challenge which might make the outcome of the action they decide to take uncertain or even impossible.

You just arbitrarily decide that some such limitations are fine and some are unacceptable. You have no rule basis for doing this.

I absolutely do. The player decides how their character thinks, speaks, and acts. Some specific rules, such as racial traits, class features, spells, and monster abilities can create specific exceptions to this, where they contradict it. And, of course, the DM determines the outcomes of the actions that the players decide their characters take, sometimes using the roll of the die to help make that determination.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wait, I'm not following you here. Getting their pocket picked would require the PC to buy the NPC a drink? What?

The PC cannot narrate paying their own drink as they have no money. The NPC took their money!

As to your second example, I gave one very similar to that up-thread, in disagreeing with @clearstream that "Intimidate" and "Persuade" were somehow special cases, or that it's even just about Charisma skills. And the hypothetical case of an NPC using sleight-of-hand to force a player to pretend their character believes an object is in a certain place is a perfect example of that.

Yes, it is perfect example of a thing the NPC can according to the rules do. They can also use their athletics to grapple the PC, which again limits how the PC can act.

1. In the first case I was talking about the distinction between a spell that has a specific, defined effect (overriding more general rules), and the default play loop, that sometimes involves ability checks, which sometimes involve skill proficiencies, and do not have specific effects defined.

Yes, spells tend to have more defined scope. It really doesn't matter though. That skills require more GM judgement doesn't mean that they do nothing.

2. In the second case I was talking about the distinction between NPC actions which impose a game-state effect on the PC that is narrated by the DM, and NPC actions that have some effect...not a defined mechanical condition...that the DM has made up and requires the player to narrate in a certain way.

Again, I don't see why this distinction would matter for the topic. The game relies GM to constantly make such stuff up. That a failed athletics check might require GM to improvise some rules effect for a shelf full of random potions collapsing on the PC doesn't mean that this effect somehow cannot affect the PC.