D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

It's not a game to be won or lost by post count.

Wait...what?

 

[Maxperson]

When debating with @iserith you just need to imagine you are debating with Dr. Spock. The cold, clinical language is not meant to be dismissive, it's just what they do. Don't take it personally.

Now I picture @iserith changing lots of diapers and giving parenting advice.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

no, by raw:
If I cast suggestion and say "I suggest (is that part of the casting?) you go home and revaluate your life" you get a save, if you fail it you go home and think about it... that is it you get no choice.
IF instead I use persuasion "I suggest you go home and revaluate your life" you get to interpret and react as you will... maybe you go home, maybe you just take a moment to reconsider there, maybe you go to a brothels' or bar because you think better there.

This example is informative in understanding how it works at your table.

If, in the persuasion scenario, the player is choosing how the PC gets to "interpret and react", what is the roll for? It does not seem to be telling us whether the persuasion attempt succeeded or failed. The player seems to be doing that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Due to special beats general, the p185 text is blank anywhere it would act to forestall what is expressly provided for in each skill.

Ok, so if I read the text, under the description of Intimidation:

or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision

You are saying that is specific enough to override the general rule?

Ok, let's say I agree to that. Does that mean that if the vizier is, say, glaring instead of sneering, the roleplaying rule is not overridden, because the specific case is not met?

I jest, of course, but do you see the problem with claiming that descriptions of skills are 'specific' rules?

Also, I never saw a response from you to my post #1376. Would love your reaction, if you have one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

if that is the case, then no PC can use intimidate either, because by the rules the DM decides what NPCs do...

You're right! Because you don't 'use intimidate'. You describe an action, perhaps with a goal of intimidating somebody, and the DM will let you know if you should make a rule, with which attribute, and whether or not you should add your proficiency bonus if you happen to be proficient in Intimidation.

I hate to keep banging that drum, but people insist on using the incorrect language, which leads to it sounding like "Intimidate" is an ability. It is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Each of the skills explicitly includes provision for a check, i.e. a provision for there being uncertainty in the outcome of that which they are applicable to. They do not distinguish between PCs and NPCs on that score.

No, they include guidance for what subset of ability checks they are applicable to. The chapter on Using Ability Scores, under the heading Ability Checks says:

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

Further on in the chapter, under the heading Skills, says:

A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. (A character's starting skill proficiencies are determined at character creation, and a monster's skill proficiencies appear in the monster's stat block.)

For example, a Dexterity check might reflect a character's attempt to pull off an acrobatic stunt, to palm an object, or to stay hidden. Each of these aspects of Dexterity has an associated skill: Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth, respectively. So a character who has proficiency in the Stealth skill is particularly good at Dexterity checks related to sneaking and hiding.

Here we see that skills merely represent proficiency at a subset of ability checks. There is no such thing as a “stealth check,” a character who is proficient in stealth is simply “particularly good at Dexterity checks related to sneaking and hiding,” and so can add their proficiency bonus to the roll when called upon by the DM to make such a check. This is why it’s written out as “Dexterity (Stealth) check” instead of just “Stealth check,” because the character is still making a Dexterity check, just one to which a character who is proficient in Stealth can add their proficiency bonus.

Further down, under the heading Dexterity, it says:

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.

Dexterity Checks​

A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing. The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks.

(…)

Stealth​

Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

Taking this together with the other excerpts, we can understand that when a character or monster makes “any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing,” “(other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,” the DM should call for a Dexterity check, and if the action involves an “attempt to conceal [the character or monster’s self] from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard,” the character can add their proficiency bonus to the Dexterity check.

We can apply the same analysis to Charisma (Intimidate) checks.

Charisma Checks​

A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. The Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Charisma checks.

(…)

​

Intimidation​

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

So, “a Charisma check might arise when [a character or monster tries] to influence or entertain others, when [a character or monster tries] to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when [a character or monster is] navigating a tricky social situation,” “(other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,” the DM should call for a Charisma check. If the action involves “[the character or monster attempting] to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask [the player controlling the character or monster] to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check,” which would allow them to add the character’s proficiency bonus to the Charisma check.

 

[Maxperson]

On this, up thread we discussed the way 5th ed rules are written as addressed to the player. My position is that when you consider RAW holistically, nothing can be read into that - it's just a stylistic choice. That is because there are basic rules that it makes no sense for NPCs and monsters not to be able to rely on (IIRC interacting with objects is an example.)

Sure, but again, a lack of what to read into something is not the same as this specific thing can be read into it.

Yes. In Persuasion it says the DM can call for a check. Only through appeal to PHB 185 is that narrowed to PC against NPC. Thus there is a direct conflict, which must be resolved in favour of the specific.

Sure, but what we are saying is that the DM might call for a check is not in contradiction or exception to the rule allowing players to decide. Both can be fully true.

If the player decides the outcome is in doubt, then the DM can call for a check. That's the "might" portion of the the DM might call for a check. he also might not call for a check as would be the case if the player decides for certain that his PC does or does not do something in response to a social skill.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ah, but it does if you are houseruling the “degrees of skill proficiency” then applying the results of a roll to how intimidating (for example) an NPC appears to a PC. And then expecting the player to have their PC react accordingly (within some band of reason established by your table). You claim that you can call for an NPC vs PC social ability check because it fits nicely into your house rules. It becomes convenient then for you also to ignore the rules of roleplaying on p 185 to reach your conclusion as those don’t fit nicely into your playstyle. Those rules do not say or even imply “the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and speaks within the bounds of ability check rolls.”

it also doesn't say “the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and speaks unless a spell stops them and only a spell because nothing else will work against a PC”

Spells have very specific rules for how they work Therein lies the specific vs general rule adjudication

Suppose you had a player that had a PC with a flaw that said they were afraid of orcs for… reasons. Do you force a check in an encounter with an orc to determine what they think? If so, what if the orc rolls a 3? Is the player not able to have their PC act frightened per their flaw?

strawman noboday has argued against auto success auto failure... no one

I'm not asking about auto success or auto failure. Please answer the questions that were asked. Or... are you saying if they have the flaw then it is expected that they "auto fail" when an orc tries to intimidate them?

 

[iserith]

Now I picture @iserith changing lots of diapers and giving parenting advice.

You're free to put the diaper on your baby's head, but the directions on the package do not support that.

 

[HammerMan]

If you've persuaded me to do something and I have to do it, then I would have to go home(with the same possibilities above). Only this time it would work without a max duration of 8 hours, and it would work on me if I were immune to charm, and it could be used at will to persuade the next 15 people you meet to do the same thing. That's more powerful than Suggestion.

If you've persuaded me to do something and I don't have to do it, then you haven't actually persuaded me to do something and there was no point to the roll at all. The player is deciding and there's no uncertainty.

once again social skills are not mind effecting spells. not on PCs not on NPCs.

You declair an intent, and roll, but the target gets to interpret how they react... persuading someone is not always binary there are a billion choices any persuaded person could react.