D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

They're incompatible because the general rule would prevent a DM who - following the explicit RAW - decides to call for a check, from calling for a check. The text you are looking for is simply not present in the social skill game elements.

Nothing in that RAW says he can call for such checks unfettered, though. It simply says he "might" call for one with no explanation for why he "might" not. That makes it fully compatible with page 185. Page 185 supplies one reason for why he only "might" call for a check.

 

[clearstream]

I mean we can keep riding this carousel if you really want.

The outcomes of ability skill checks do not prescribe how one thinks, acts, or speaks. Just like the DM will determine how the NPC thinks, acts, or speaks in response to a successful social check by a PC, the player will determine how the PC thinks, acts, or speaks in response to a successful social check by an NPC. And, in the latter case, since there the player decides, there is no uncertainty. No roll is called by the DM.

Yes please! Let's go around one more time

 

[Maxperson]

Yes please! Let's go around one more time

I call the fish. I want to ride the fish!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't buy that. It's not - the player might approve a check - it's the DM might call for a check.

For an NPC acting on a PC?

Whether you describe it as somebody approving a check or asking for a check it's the same thing. And it only occurs if it is determined that the attempt does not succeed nor fail automatically. The question is: who determines that?

As I argued upthread, if you think DM should decide whether their own NPCs, acting on PCs, should succeed automatically, then we may as well stop arguing because we're never going to agree

And if you argue that you skip that step when it's an NPC acting on a PC, then we're not using the prescribed play loop, so I don't know where you're getting that new rule from.

So that means the player must decide whether the NPCs attempt (to persuade, intimidate, belittle, seduce) will automatically succeed or fail (in its goal of altering their PC's behavior). Not only is it the only logical answer, it also maintains the symmetry some people crave.

And as long as we agree on that, I guess I don't really care if it's the DM who "calls for a roll" in the case of uncertainty. The player had their chance to declare the attempt was not going to work, so if they want to turn it over to the DM that's fine.

 

[clearstream]

I call the fish. I want to ride the fish!

I wanted to ride sleigh anyway !

 

[Bill Zebub]

I want a carousel with iconic D&D monsters.

I get the Beholder.

 

[HammerMan]

As I argued upthread, if you think DM should decide whether their own NPCs, acting on PCs, should succeed automatically, then we may as well stop arguing because we're never going to agree

who is this addressed to? WHo here in the last 80ish pages said they auto make checks against PCs?

 

[Bill Zebub]

who is this addressed to? WHo here in the last 80ish pages said they auto make checks against PCs?

Uh, nobody?

That sentence was written as a conditional.

(Well, technically I was addressing @clearstream, but it was still a conditional: IF he agrees with that statement. But I don't think he will.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Lot's of text. Let's simplify

1. Game elements can be specifics that beat general (PHB 7)
2. When a specific beats a general, it creates an exception to how the game works - there's no limitation on that (PHB 7)
3. Skills are game elements
4. Social skills - like Persuasion - say that DM can call for checks
5. Any general rule that gets in the way of that specific is ignored

PHB 7 makes your discussion of process irrelevant. Unless you would like to say that skills are not a game element?

4 is incorrect. I’ve given my analysis of the game function of skills above, and yes it does contain lots of text, most of which is quoted directly from the rules. If you believe my analysis to be flawed in some way, feel free to point out how, but this response is simply ignoring my analysis and reiterating your opinion as fact.

 

[Bill Zebub]

4 is incorrect. I’ve given my analysis of the game function of skills above, and yes it does contain lots of text, most of which is quoted directly from the rules. If you believe my analysis to be flawed in some way, feel free to point out how, but this response is simply ignoring my analysis and reiterating your opinion as fact.

And, like @HammerMan previously, in those enumerated steps he omitted the "determine whether it succeeds or fails automatically" step. Which is critical to his logic.