D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Reading those sections with a player trying to do something against another player it is not clear that skills do not work against fellow players. Say a player's action is to cast a mind control spell on another character or to attempt to persuade them, it would follow the player declares what they want their character to do formula.

As was pointed out in my charm thread the Rogue has a subclass that at level 9 letss you impose the charmed condition... so not even just spells

 

[Shiroiken]

I have to say that I've very, very glad that our group accepts the idea of rolls impacting their decisions. If a player lies to another, they roll deceit vs. insight and play it out as they would against an NPC. Same for a persuasion check. To us, the rolls have a meaning, and we should adjust our RP to reflect this. Also like the rules, if there's absolutely no chance for success (or failure) no roll is made.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I have to say that I've very, very glad that our group accepts the idea of rolls impacting their decisions. If a player lies to another, they roll deceit vs. insight and play it out as they would against an NPC. Same for a persuasion check. To us, the rolls have a meaning, and we should adjust our RP to reflect this. Also like the rules, if there's absolutely no chance for success (or failure) no roll is made.

At your table, who determines if a roll is necessary when one PC lies to another?

 

[cbwjm]

This topic gets re-hashed a lot, it seems, and in general my stance is that social skills don't 'work' on other PCs.

But I was just reading some of the early materials for Stonetop, a kickstarted PoA game, and came across this:

View attachment 147502

I like that a lot. It leaves the target PC fully in control of the player, but also provides a framework for Cha skills to 'work' on other PCs.

I don't have an elegant way to map that to 5e rules, but thought I'd throw it out there as a middle ground between the two sides of the debate.

EDIT: Try again on the attachment....
View attachment 147505

Might have already been mentioned, but maybe the player that is being persuaded gains inspiration if the answer is yes and the Persuasion check is successful.

Not something I'd probably use myself, I'd rather let the players decide without using skills on each other, but if you do want this as part of your 5e system, then inspiration might be a good way to go.

 

[iserith]

Yeah taken as a rule and not a narrative description of roleplaying that would be a general rule and would mean unless something more specific said to do otherwise.

A spell can tell you to do otherwise.

The question is whether a skill check can tell you to do otherwise as well.

That's the thing with forum discussions: It's a rule if it supports someone's assertion and a "narrative description" or "guideline" if it doesn't.

But in any case, there is nothing in the rules to my knowledge that suggests a "skill check" can override the rules on page 185. It would require that the DM say something that was certain was uncertain, thereby taking over playing of the character in some respects. Players can't decide to roll "skill checks" to make something happen. Only the DM can call for ability checks under certain conditions: the player has declared a task which the DM believes has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. ("Skill check" is not a term in D&D 5e, notably.)

I am not seeing any differentiation between skills and spells in any of that.

Reading those sections with a player trying to do something against another player it is not clear that skills do not work against fellow players. Say a player's action is to cast a mind control spell on another character or to attempt to persuade them, it would follow the player declares what they want their character to do formula.

I don't think this part of the rules tells you about spells or skills or character roleplaying, I think you have to look at the skills section for whether skills are creating a specific exception by allowing a check to influence or deceive or persuade or entertain or intimidate another PC.

I do not see clear statements in 5e that skills like persuade work on NPCs only the way that say 3.5 diplomacy was explicitly to influence NPCs.

Again, "skill checks" aren't doing anything here. A spell can and there are plenty of examples. But the DM resolving with an ability check what happens when a player is trying to have their character persuade, intimidate, or deceive another player's character is not supported by the rules. The rules on page 185 apply - the player decides.

 

[Shiroiken]

At your table, who determines if a roll is necessary when one PC lies to another?

Technically the DM, but players will often just make rolls against each other. A roll isn't necessary based on the obviousness of the situation, but the target always has the option to refuse a roll, which can sometimes be considered bad form. Exceptions exist though, such as my current warlock that's a well known liar (I've had a hard time convincing them when I'm telling the truth!).

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I haven't had much PVP in 2 editions... so that seems weird. I on page one said I roll to give the player information there character would have.


I personally dislike those games, in other threads I have talked about how we don't keep secretes out of game, we only do any 'against each other' if we all agree it is fun.

And here I thought I was agreeing with you, but your responses are still weirdly terse and only about what your group does.

Oh well!

 

[Mordhau]

My rule in D&D is that social skills in general don't work on other PCs. As others have suggested, I'm fine with the PC being affected choosing to roll if they want - but they have the freedom to just decide.

This is based on the kind of game D&D is and the kind of social skills that is has (or rather doesn't have. ie. I don't think D&D has satisfactory rules to facilitate PVP interaction.)

In other games I don't necessary apply the same restrictions. I'll happily allow characters in A Song of Ice and Fire rpg to engage in intrigue with each other.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Technically the DM, but players will often just make rolls against each other. A roll isn't necessary based on the obviousness of the situation, but the target always has the option to refuse a roll, which can sometimes be considered bad form.

So not too different from letting the player decide on the outcome when their PC is the target of a social "attack" (not really the right word, but trying to come up with some kind of shorthand for PvP Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception). Other than the DM part and the "bad form" bit, that is.

Exceptions exist though, such as my current warlock that's a well known liar (I've had a hard time convincing them when I'm telling the truth!).

I love the imagery here. "Serious, y'all, I'm getting a bad feeling about that corridor!" "Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure."

 

[iserith]

there is no uncertainty until there is...

Not when the player gets to decide how the character reacts to the orc. It's certain.

yes it is... stats show how 'strong/healthy/smart/charasmatic the monster is and skill prof shows what they are good at. add togather how inately they are stated and how skilled they are and you get a number... most of the time we add a d20 for variable, but I guess you could just say +5.

When it comes to resolving whether the orc intimidates the PC, there is no roll. If we're trying to say how intimidating the orc looks, that's just description. No roll. Use your words.

and again and again and again this is right up there with the reverse... if the player tries to intimadate the orc the DM is in control of the orc he doesn't HAVE to call for a roll... but they CAN...

The DM can absolutely call for an ability check to see if the PC intimidates the orc, if the DM determines the result is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. When it's the orc trying to intimidate the PC, that is not the case because the result is certain.

the player can

the description comes with a game mechanic number

You can do that, but it's not supported by the rules. So I don't do that in addition to finding it to be unnecessary since the player decides based on my description how they want the character to act.

sure they do. You just don't read them the way others do. the very fact that we have this argument (not me and you but enworld in general) every few years should show that some people read the rules and see it diffrent then you...

The burden of proof that the rules support playing this way is on you for that assertion. I showed the rules that underwrite my assertions. Outside of "play however you want," which is true.

nobody answered me... since I don't use insperation, how would it effect the orc roll? I thought it was to give advantage to PC rolls, so what am I missing?

If you're running a game where some amount of rolls are made simply for color, it's harder for the players to decide where and when to spend resources that may affect the roll. You say they can just ask, but in a game like mine, you don't have to - all rolls are consequential. That strikes me as both supported by the rules and simply easier at the table.

As well, why would I want to be advising players on how to spend their resources? That's a meaningful decision for them to make on their own (or along with their fellow players). I'm there to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for rolls to resolve uncertainty when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. I'm not there to tell them how to play their characters.