D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Aldarc]

This. @clearstream keeps posing the question as if there is an Intimidate action, comparable to the Shove or Hide actions. But there isn’t. Which is why I like shifting out example to “seduce”, to make it clear that we are talking about a general-purpose game resolution mechanic, applied when there is no specific mechanic. And within that, if it seems like a specific skill could apply to the task at hand, the DM may allow the proficiency bonus to be added.

Skills are not actions.

There may be an issue herein, however, involving the difference between the De Jure and De Facto use of skills in D&D 5e. While some may believe that the former is what matters when discussing the game per the rules, I would argue that the latter in some respects reflects a more accurate sense of the game per common practice.

For example, I noted earlier that Dungeon World (and PbtA) don't really have "action skills" either. Nevertheless, players may attempt to trigger or name their Moves in the fiction as if they were. So while Dungeon World does not have "action skills" de jure, moves can cultivate a quasi-"action skill" status through gameplay.

In the case of 5e D&D, as skills are one of the most player-facing means of mechanically affecting the fiction outside (or sometimes within) of combat, would it really be surprising for them to take on an action-like quality in common practice of play?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

No, they allow the character proficient with them to add their proficiency bonus to ability checks made to resolve actions with the goals listed under them (such as trying to pry information from a prisoner). Remember, skills are not actions, they are a source of bonuses.

 

[HammerMan]

And to answer the question posed by that poster: Just about anyone can be "so great" as to just use words to describe the orc. I'm not special in this regard.

okay then explain how you determine a non plot relevant monster and how well they present in ANY social situation on the fly when your players throw you a curve ball?

Orc/intimidate is the easiest in my mind, but pick any monster in MM1, how do you decide on the fly how to play them?

The question is whether the rules support rolling for description. They don't.

they do we have showed you, but it just doesn't count what you don't like.

 

[Charlaquin]

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]

Stealth is not an action. The Hide action is an action, with specific rules for its resolution, which include making a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Improvised actions in combat work the same as they do out of combat. The player describes what they want to do, and the DM determines if they succeed, fail, or need to make a check. A few examples of what sort of check would be appropriate for what sorts of improvised actions.

 

[HammerMan]

There may be an issue herein, however, involving the difference between the De Jure and De Facto use of skills in D&D 5e. While some may believe that the former is what matters when discussing the game per the rules, I would argue that the latter in some respects reflects a more accurate sense of the game per common practice.

For example, I noted earlier that Dungeon World (and PbtA) don't really have "action skills" either. Nevertheless, players may attempt to trigger or name their Moves in the fiction as if they were. So while Dungeon World does not have "action skills" de jure, moves can cultivate a quasi-"action skill" status through gameplay.

In the case of 5e D&D, as skills are one of the most player-facing means of mechanically affecting the fiction outside (or sometimes within) of combat, would it really be surprising for them to take on an action-like quality in common practice of play?

the funny part is if you jump into any "Fighters need more options" threads you will find tons of DMs say "Well they have the best attributes, and they can think creative and use skills"

then you come to this thread and see

No, they allow the character proficient with them to add their proficiency bonus to ability checks made to resolve actions with the goals listed under them (such as trying to pry information from a prisoner). Remember, skills are not actions, they are a source of bonuses.

 

[Charlaquin]

There may be an issue herein, however, involving the difference between the De Jure and De Facto use of skills in D&D 5e. While some may believe that the former is what matters when discussing the game per the rules, I would argue that the latter in some respects reflects a more accurate sense of the game per common practice.

Right, and I am of the opinion that this common practice is not supported by the actual rules of D&D 5th edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

the funny part is if you jump into any "Fighters need more options" threads you will find tons of DMs say "Well they have the best attributes, and they can think creative and use skills"

then you come to this thread and see

Right, and I’m one of the DMs who thinks Fighters should have more options.

 

[HammerMan]

Right, and I am of the opinion that this common practice is not supported by the actual rules of D&D 5th edition.

just to be clear, you believe the common practice of people playing 5th edition, is not the right reading of 5th edition?

If so, how smart do you have to be to find these 'true readings' (I admit I am dumb, so I am going to roll with this)?

 

[HammerMan]

Right, I’m one of the DMs who thinks Fighters should have more options.

hey we are the same side on that one

 

[Charlaquin]

just to be clear, you believe the common practice of people playing 5th edition, is not the right reading of 5th edition?

If so, how smart do you have to be to find these 'true readings' (I admit I am dumb, so I am going to roll with this)?

I don’t think you have to be particularly smart, I just think you have to read all of the rules in both the player’s handbook and dungeon master’s guide, with a mind towards understanding them as the rules for a unique game, rather than patch notes for the latest update to the same game that’s been going since 1974. I think most DMs don’t actually do this. They assume they basically know how D&D is played based on their experience playing or running past editions of the games and mostly skim the rules for things that have obviously changed.