D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

Yes. This speaks to another trend at some tables where high ability check rolls by the players mean their PCs completed a task in a super duper great manner. Meanwhile, low ability check rolls means the PC was clumsy or just plain terrible at said task.

I fail to see any problem with this at all. The DM is simply using the roll as both a success-fail determinant (as in, was the DC met or not) and as an informant to the narration of said success-failure. I do much the same thing, and would still were I running 5e.

I find these roll-based outcome narrations by the DM (or player) to fly in the face of the fact that the PCs are capable adventurers.

Capable doesn't mean perfect, and sometimes when they fail at something they're gonna fail hard. Flip side: sometimes they're going to succeed without any apparent effort as this time everything just goes right for them.

It’s telling that there are no crits on ability checks or saves per RAW. A low ability check roll below the DC simply means the PC did not accomplish their goal and will suffer the meaningful consequence. No need to add insult to injury, IMO. Again, nothing wrong with choosing to play this way if it is fun for the table, but there is no rules support for it.

A hard-coded crit system isn't required for the DM to use the roll to inform narration, and in fact might be overkill as it'd then force changes in narration in situations where none might be needed.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would actually house rule that to be allowed with the Charm Person spell only. Charm Person explicitly causes the target to view the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, so in my mind it's not as strong as the condition shows. If a friendly acquaintance of mine started trying to stab one of my close friends with a knife, his being a friendly acquaintance would not stop me from getting involved on the side of my friend.

Charm Person does cause the Charmed Condition from my reading.

 

[Maxperson]

Charm Person does cause the Charmed Condition from my reading.

It does, which is why I say it would be house ruled. The spell is first level and the effect of the spell as written in the spell itself is weaker than the condition.

 

[Lanefan]

You spoke against half the “win” condition laid out in the 5e book, hence my response.

Also, upon further reflection, I’m not sure I believe you. “Believe” is t quite the right word and I don’t mean that in a harsh way or that you were being disingenuous at all - but that you were limiting your view of what “story” represents. You say you care about everyone having a “good time” but don’t care about the “exciting, memorable story.” The latter, though, is tied into the former. Every time you reminisce about some crazy scene in a past game, you are honoring the memorable story. The “good time” doesn’t have to end at the table. It indeed carries over into the memories we share years later.

Agreed, but in my own experience many (most?) of the later-told war stories tend to revolve around individual events - a particular battle, a spectacular PC death or act of derring-do, some comedic event or quote that had us laughing all night, etc. - with only passing "what were we doing at the time?" reference to the larger-scale stories, if any.

During play, while as a player I pay some attention to the larger story, most of the time the only thing that matters in the moment is what's happening in the moment. It doesn't matter why we're fighting this group of Orcs, it matters that we are in fact fighting them and we'd better beat them down before they kill us. We can sort out the whys and wherefores later.

 

[Lanefan]

You are free to play that way, of course, but you're not following the play loop as outlined in the rules. If the player declares that they are trying to get the Orc to back down by intimidating them, and the DM asks for a roll, then the roll is to determine if they succeed in their goal. Which is to get them to back down.

If you are asking them to roll for another reason, then you're not following the prescribed play loop.

I think the DM here would be quite justified in asking for a roll for another reason: to see if you're caught flatfooted when the Orc punches you in the face in response to your so-called intimidation attempt...

 

[clearstream]

In any event, Yoda was wrong. "Try" and "do" are two different things. The player controls try, the DM adjudicates do.

Several posters have made similar arguments, and it is splitting hairs. A character who was intimidated by an NPC seeking to pry information from them could try to withhold that information, but what they do is spill it.

 

[clearstream]

No. It cannot. It's specifically only a counter to insight. So a successful insight check = detection of the lie. A failed insight roll = can't tell. At no point does it = must believe that the lie is truth. The player is always free to have his PC suspect that there is a lie happening or believe the lie as truth. It's up to him.

This is hair-splitting. Here is the text -

This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.

An NPC using deception could successfully make a player-character believe that NPC is someone who they are not (i.e. pass themselves off in a disguise.)

 

[clearstream]

I can’t imagine why a player would want to do so. If, at the table, a player whose character was charmed declared that they attack the charmer, I would say “that action would fail, because the charmed condition prevents you from attacking them. Would you like to try something else instead?” But I suppose, if the player insisted, I would allow them to spend their action trying and failing to attack the charmer…

The charmed condition reads in part that a charmed creature can't attack the charmer. It is a tortured interpretation to say that the PC can attempt to make an attack that they are forbidden by the game mechanics to do. They can't attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

The charmed condition reads in part that a charmed creature can't attack the charmer. It is a tortured interpretation to say that the PC can attempt to make an attack that they are forbidden by the game mechanics to do. They can't attack.

Seems like a distinction without difference to me. As the charmed condition is a specific rule that contradicts a more general rule, whether the charmed creature can “try” to attack the charmer or not really has no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[Lanefan]

The player can declare that for their PC if they wish. However, as a DM, I'd kindly remind the player that such an action will auto-fail due to the Charmed condition and ask the player if they either a) want that to be the character's (wasted) action or b) want to have their PC try something else instead.

This is an interesting one, as it would make a big difference in the fiction just where in the sequence of events that auto-fail kicks in.

Can the charmed person not even try to attack, i.e. the auto-fail kicks in before he even draws a weapon or raises his arm to strike?
Can the charmed person go through all the motions of attacking with the auto-fail only kicking in to force the to-hit roll to be a miss?
Does the auto-fail kick in at some point between the above two end-points?

Relevant in that an observer - including the charmer - wouldn't likely notice anything odd happening in the first example above but certainly would in the second and may or may not in the third.