D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

and how does the player decide? where is that?

It's the rule that says that the player decides what his character thinks and feels.

We have rules for sociol skills?

We do.

We have rules for "that works" and "That doesn't work"

Yes. If the player or DM do not decide that something simply succeeds or fails, THEN the rules tell us to roll if the outcome is in doubt AND there is a meaningful consequence for failure. Those same rules tell us not to roll if the outcome is determined to be certain.

We have rules for "That can work but wont for sure" it's called ability check and can add skills

Yep. And these never come into play if the social skill is used on a PC and the player decides that it fails or succeeds.

 

[Aldarc]

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

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.

But to what extent does that opinion actually matter then if the vast majority of tables don't abide by your understanding of the rules? To prove that everyone else is engaging in badwrongfun? That they are playing D&D 5e wrong? That you have special gnosis about proper 5e play?

I find that your opinion ventures a little too close to OneTrueWayism for my liking, which may not be the intention of your sentiment here, but it at best flirts with it and skirts that line.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

if that was true then why does this keep coming up and why are then a half dozen posters tellyou and him they read the exact same books and got a different answer?

wait so you agree the roll may be needed? now I am REALLY confused

they show the rules we read, how they were read and what lead us to the conclusion it did...

this is not a strawman...this is the damn argument.

or follow the rules of the game and make an intimidate check

that is correct, and I have explained my house rules plenty, if you don't understand you can ask, but my house rules have nothing to do with if skills work for NPCs

okay go back, find a poster that agreeed with me, then read the thread and came away convinced by his argument. just 1 example... you can go back According to @GMforPowergamers they have had many arguments with @iserith so you have to be able to disprove me by finding one poster saying something like "Oh I get it now"

every rule quoted is a real rule, and they DO support my argument. You just don't like them.

I actually don’t see anyone else, other than you, arguing that the rules for ability checks specifically say that the number on the dice reflects where you land on the “bad —> good” spectrum of the proficiency being invoked. That’s all you. It’s a valid way to play but there has been zero evidence provided by you or anyone else that the 5e rules definitively say this.

One more time with feeling: during an ability check, the number rolled determines success or failure when compared to the DC. Period. Feel free to describe very high rolls for thieves tools as “opening the naughty word out of that lock!” Or a very low number as “you break all your tools and fingers trying to open the lock!” But that is a play style that is not anywhere dictated in the text of the rule books.

 

[iserith]

all you are doing is being insulting and smug at this point... what goal could you possibly have that has you state for sure that you have found the one true reading of the rule book and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and falls into house rules?

There's nothing insulting about saying what the rules support and don't support given a plain reading of the text. There is no personal attack in that. I guess the question I would have for you is why you appear to find it insulting for it to be pointed out a thing you do isn't supported by the rules. Who cares? It doesn't prevent you from doing what you want and nobody gives a flumph if anyone house rules.

 

[HammerMan]

Yep. And these never come into play if the social skill is used on a PC and the player decides that it fails or succeeds.

it does they way I and others read it

 

[HammerMan]

But to what extent does that opinion actually matter then if the vast majority of tables don't abide by your understanding of the rules? To prove that everyone else is engaging in badwrongfun? That they are playing D&D 5e wrong? That you have special gnosis about proper 5e play?

I find that your opinion ventures a little too close to OneTrueWayism for my liking, which may not be the intention of your sentiment here, but it at best flirts with it and skirts that line.

TBF they don't think we need to change, they accept us playing this 'wrong reading' as long as we call it a house rule, and the rest of us refuse to call it a house rule becuse we read it as in the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

I actually don’t see anyone else, other than you, arguing that the rules for ability checks specifically say that the number on the dice reflects where you land on the “bad —> good” spectrum of the proficiency being invoked. That’s all you. It’s a valid way to play but there has been zero evidence provided by you or anyone else that the 5e rules definitively say this.

and again that is my house rule... the base game is binary (yes/no) and that's fine. it still doesn't change how the game runs if you make the roll.

One more time with feeling: during an ability check, the number rolled determines success or failure when compared to the DC. Period.

okay
so set a DC, there are rules for that too.

Feel free to describe very high rolls for thieves tools as “opening the naughty word out of that lock!” Or a very low number as “you break all your tools and fingers trying to open the lock!” But that is a play style that is not anywhere dictated in the text of the rule books.

and not anything that has anything to do with if you can call for an NPC cha check

 

[Maxperson]

if that was true then why does this keep coming up and why are then a half dozen posters tellyou and him they read the exact same books and got a different answer?

People misinterpret things and keep doing so. Misinterpretations don't become valid interpretations just because the people doing it believe that they are correct.

wait so you agree the roll may be needed? now I am REALLY confused

If the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, then an ability check is called for.

So if I describe the orc engaging in a great display of intimidation, the next step is for the player to decide success, failure or doubt. If the player says, "The orc's display makes me a bit nervous, but I cannot be cowed," then the intimidation has failed. If the player says, "Holy cow. I don't want to mess with that guy. I turn around and run back into the forest and try to get away, " the intimidation has succeeded. If the player says, "That's a really impressive display, I'm really not sure if I would stay or run," then a roll is called for because the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

or follow the rules of the game and make an intimidate check

Those aren't the rules. The rules are that such a check is not made unless the outcome is already in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

okay go back, find a poster that agreeed with me, then read the thread and came away convinced by his argument. just 1 example... you can go back According to @GMforPowergamers they have had many arguments with @iserith so you have to be able to disprove me by finding one poster saying something like "Oh I get it now"

You joined a long time ago, but your post numbers indicate that you're fairly new to posting things and participation. So you might not be aware that this is the umpteenth thread on this. I'm not going to go back and dig through at LEAST a dozen threads in order to prove to you that you only speak for yourself and not everyone.

every rule quoted is a real rule, and they DO support my argument. You just don't like them.

So, I don't like or dislike any argument you've made. And no, not one of them has supported the ability to override the rule that the player gets to decide what his character thinks or feels.

You still haven't responded to the fact that your interpretation turns social skills into a form of mind control that is superior to the Suggestion spell. Do you really think the designers intended social skills to be more powerful than a 2nd level spell designed to control minds?

 

[Charlaquin]

But to what extent does that opinion actually matter then if the vast majority of tables don't abide by your understanding of the rules? To prove that everyone else is engaging in badwrongfun? That they are playing D&D 5e wrong? That you have special gnosis about proper 5e play?

I find that your opinion ventures a little too close to OneTrueWayism for my liking, which may not be the intention of your sentiment here, but it at best flirts with it and skirts that line.

I don’t actually care how other people run their games. If it’s fun for them, they’re more than welcome to play however they want to. There are, however, a lot of very commonly reported issues people have with the game that my approach neatly avoids. The way I see it is, often people try to run D&D 5e more or less like they did some other edition, and that ends up having consequences unforeseen by the design, which they then rely on house rules to fix (often causing more unforeseen consequences). And, again, there’s nothing at all wrong with that if it’s fun for them and their players. I’m not trying to tell anyone how they should play the game, I’m just trying to promote understanding of the rules as they are, and to point out places where these commonly reported issues people experience when playing the game don’t really arise when played as written.

 

[HammerMan]

There's nothing insulting about saying what the rules support and don't support given a plain reading of the text.

Others have read the text and disagree. the creators have said many times it is up to our interpretations. so why do YOU not accept our interpretation to be as valid as yours?

There is no personal attack in that. I guess the question I would have for you is why you appear to find it insulting for it to be pointed out a thing you do isn't supported by the rules. Who cares?

I care becuse it is a way of shutting down the conversation. When someone asks about Charisma Skills being used on PC vs PC or NPC vs PC you come in and declair the 'correct' answer and when others say they see it diffrent, instead of saying "Here is why I do X Y and Z and here are the pros and cons" you just try to shut it down calling us out as having house rules.

It doesn't prevent you from doing what you want and nobody gives a flumph if anyone house rules.

it isn't a house rule (although I have gne into many in this and other threads)