D&D 5E (2014) Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

says who? did you write the books? are you secretly a WotC employee, or just a mind reader?

great... you are so great you can always describe a range of orcs from 3-22 and do so with a random distribution so to not overly or underly advantage or disadvantage a player... so glad you are such a machine... for the rest of us we have game mechanics.

and I have shown all of those things, you just dismis them.

wait you just changed it to respond... no skill gives a player or dm the ability to author a responce (heck few spells do) so you are just making things up now.

I guess you could house rule a mechanic for a coin flip or a d100 chart... I am sure back in the 90's someone made a d100 chart for any/everything. However instead I use the game mechanic for an ability score/ skill check since I am NOT HOUSE RULEING.

yes it is, I have read everything you have written and you have convinced no one....

I have supported mine with the rules for skills, the rules for npcs the rules for each social ability, you just don't like it.

It strikes me as poor form to respond to a post from 500 posts ago when the conversation has moved on in some ways.

Thanks for calling me great though. I'm touched.

 

[HammerMan]

However they want to.

Sure, if the player decides the DM should make an ability check to determine if the action succeeds at making them think, feel, or do the thing, that’s their prerogative.

and when the entire group reads the rules and discusses it and agrees that those rolls make the most sense..

 

[HammerMan]

It strikes me as poor form to respond to a post from 500 posts ago when the conversation has moved on in some ways.

Thanks for calling me great though. I'm touched.

I was (and normally am) unable to respond on weekends when I am busiest. I prioritize my work family and PLAYING the game over talking about it.

 

[Charlaquin]

and when the entire group reads the rules and discusses it and agrees that those rolls make the most sense..

Then they can agree to ask the DM to make a check, obviously. The point is, it’s the players’ decision to make in that instance.

 

[Maxperson]

1. Ability checks are not actions, they’re a step in the action resolution process; a step which comes after determining uncertainty, if uncertainty is established.

Interestingly, skills do become actions during combat. Hide is listed as a main action, and intimidation, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses(arcana or perception) and calling for a parley with a foe(persuasion) are listed in the improvised actions section.

 

[HammerMan]

Then they can agree to ask the DM to make a check, obviously. The point is, it’s the players’ decision to make in that instance.

just like it is the DM when it is NPC...

 

[clearstream]

You’re not making any sense. My argument is that ability checks are part of the basic action resolution process. Why would I need to discount skills as game elements that can create exceptions to the general rules? I believe that they are game elements. Their function is to allow the DM to determine if a creature can add its proficiency bonus to an ability check. Nothing about that function is in contrast to the general rules for action resolution, so I don’t understand what relevance their ability to create exceptions to more general rules has.

They create an exception to PHB 185 such that they can do the things listed in them, without any carve outs (such as preventing uncertainty in their regard) that might otherwise be created by PHB 185. For example, when a creatures is trying to pry information from a prisoner, a DM can call for a check.

 

[clearstream]

Interestingly, skills do become actions during combat. Hide is listed as a main action, and intimidation, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses(arcana or perception) and calling for a parley with a foe(persuasion) are listed in the improvised actions section.

That's true. It was @Charlaquin's set of steps I was listing so I'm curious to see what they think of that?

[Edited]

 

[Maxperson]

says who? did you write the books? are you secretly a WotC employee, or just a mind reader?

He doesn't have to have written the books, be a WotC employee or mind reader. He just has to be able to read what was written. Uncertainty with regard to ability checks is per RAW decided before the roll happens.

great... you are so great you can always describe a range of orcs from 3-22 and do so with a random distribution so to not overly or underly advantage or disadvantage a player... so glad you are such a machine... for the rest of us we have game mechanics.

I and the two other DMs in my group also don't need to roll to see how to describe orcs. It's really, really easy to just describe an orc as being as intimidating as we like, then if necessary roll the ability check to see if the intimidation was successful or not.

and I have shown all of those things, you just dismis them.

Because they don't show what you think they show.

wait you just changed it to respond... no skill gives a player or dm the ability to author a responce (heck few spells do) so you are just making things up now.

This is a Strawman of what @iserith just said. First, the DM can author responses without a skill, but yes, skills don't give the DM that ability. Second, the roleplaying rules are what give the player the ability to decide whether social skills affect his PC and to what degree, not a skill.

I guess you could house rule a mechanic for a coin flip or a d100 chart... I am sure back in the 90's someone made a d100 chart for any/everything.

Or just follow the rules and the DM describes the environment, including what the orcs are doing.

However instead I use the game mechanic for an ability score/ skill check since I am NOT HOUSE RULEING.

You are also not following RAW if you use ability checks for how well an orc intimidates someone. Ability checks are by RAW to determine success or failure of uncertain ability checks. There's not one word about using them to see how well someone does something.

yes it is, I have read everything you have written and you have convinced no one....

You don't get to speak for everyone. He hasn't convinced you, but you're a far cry from everyone.

I have supported mine with the rules for skills, the rules for npcs the rules for each social ability, you just don't like it.

You've attempted to support yours with rules that don't say what you think they do, but that's not the same as giving your claims real support.

 

[iserith]

Interestingly, skills do become actions during combat. Hide is listed as a main action, and intimidation, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses(arcana or perception) and calling for a parley with a foe(persuasion) are listed in the improvised actions section.

They still aren't actions though. The action is whatever the PC is doing e.g. attempting to hide during a battle which costs an action to attempt. The ability check resolves uncertainty e.g. Dexterity (Stealth) check versus enemies' passive Perception to resolve whether the PC becomes hidden or not. We should never conflate actions with ability checks, nor ability checks with actions.