D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

No, they include guidance for what subset of ability checks they are applicable to.

What you call guidance includes explicitly stating that a DM can call for a check.

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.)

How is this relevant, given we are considering skills as a game element? We should be looking at the skill RAW. In exactly the same way that the spells system might not include exceptions to PHB 185, but individual spells can.

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.

Why are you focused on stealth checks? I am talking about stealth as a game element. Do you believe stealth isn't a game element?

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.

Possibly you don't mean everything you say here? If you do, then where the DM controls the NPC or monster, the DM makes the check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, wait, is that what he's arguing? That "using skills" is not the same as the play loop, and are used independently of ability checks?

Well, that's definitely a new one then. I can't wait to see the page reference.

He can correct me if I’m wrong of course, but I understand his argument to be that the text describing the use of skills (which are rules) say that the DM may make a check, and therefore constitute a specific exception to the rules for determining when a check is called for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This still is not true. You keep creating a conflict where none inherently exists. For such a conflict to be inherent in the rules, page 179 needs to say that the DM is the only one who can decide the outcome. The fact that it says, "might" call for a check, means that there is no inherent conflict, since page 185 works perfect fine as a reason why the DM "might" not call for the check. No inherent conflict in those rules means that Specific Beats General never enters play.

Although, honestly, if somebody reads the guidance on page 179 and concludes that this constitutes a "specific" rule, we're probably not going to make any progress in the discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

What ever happened to good old fashioned unicorns?

Too horsey. I left out centaurs and pegasi as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What you call guidance includes explicitly stating that a DM can call for a check.

The passage you quote also explicitly states it's part of the play loop, and even mentions the "chance of failure" and "uncertain outcome". I will ask you yet again: who determines if the outcome is uncertain, when it's an NPC acting on a PC?

 

[Maxperson]

Although, honestly, if somebody reads the guidance on page 179 and concludes that this constitutes a "specific" rule, we're probably not going to make any progress in the discussion.

And I would argue that a rule that very specifically gives a player the right to determine how his character thinks and feels is more specific than the general rule about ability checks, so even if we accept that argument, it still loses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I would argue that a rule that very specifically gives a player the right to determine how his character thinks and feels is more specific than the general rule about ability checks, so even if we accept that argument, it still loses.

And it's honestly a good question: how do you determine which rules are more general and which are more specific?

For example, how do we know that the sleep spell is general, but the Elven immunity to sleep is the more specific? Maybe the elven immunity is a general thing, and the spell is specific? But it seems to me that sleep does not specify any races or types, so we assume the description applies to all creatures. Since the Elven ability only applies to elves, it is more specific.

Getting back on topic, I would say that since the play loop applies to all actions that don't rely on specific rules, not just attempts to influence other characters but also attempts to steal things or understand things or notice things etc. etc. etc., and the roleplaying rule only applies to a subset of all possible actions, the roleplaying rule is more specific.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, wait, is that what he's arguing? That "using skills" is not the same as the play loop, and are used independently of ability checks?

Well, that's definitely a new one then. I can't wait to see the page reference.

Spellcasting has a general system, right? The overarching spellcasting rules that regulate spell use. That system might not include exceptions to PHB 185. Yet, as already agreed, individual spells can overrided PHB 185.

Similarly, ability checks have a general system. The overarching rules that regulate ability use. That system might not include exceptions to PHB 185. Yet a distinct game element - the Deception skill say - can be a specific that beats PHB 185 general.

Note that in saying that skills are a game element, I am looking at the RAW. I am seeing that there is a title, instructions and examples. I am noticing that characters can have them - independently each from the other - proficient or even expert.

Or would you like to say that skills are not a game element? Because that fact alone is sufficient to engage PHB 7. The rest is lengthy argumentation that has no bearing.

The passage you quote also explicitly states it's part of the play loop, and even mentions the "chance of failure" and "uncertain outcome". I will ask you yet again: who determines if the outcome is uncertain, when it's an NPC acting on a PC?

Only if you engage circular reasoning is that salient.

 

[clearstream]

And it's honestly a good question: how do you determine which rules are more general and which are more specific?

For example, how do we know that the sleep spell is general, but the Elven immunity to sleep is the more specific? Maybe the elven immunity is a general thing, and the spell is specific? But it seems to me that sleep does not specify any races or types, so we assume the description applies to all creatures. Since the Elven ability only applies to elves, it is more specific.

Getting back on topic, I would say that since the play loop applies to all actions that don't rely on specific rules, not just attempts to influence other characters but also attempts to steal things or understand things or notice things etc. etc. etc., and the roleplaying rule only applies to a subset of all possible actions, the roleplaying rule is more specific.

It's true that there are cases where it's not possible to tell which is the more specific. This is not such a case, but they do exist.

For it to be such a case, PHB 185 would need to only apply to skills. I mean, I'm actually kind of interested in that idea. What do you think?

 

[Charlaquin]

What you call guidance includes explicitly stating that a DM can call for a check.

Yes, but as that text is part of the rules for using ability scores, it must be taken in context with the rest of the rules for ability scores.

How is this relevant, given we are considering skills as a game element? We should be looking at the skill RAW. In exactly the same way that the spells system might not include exceptions to PHB 185, but individual spells can.

Because the text explicitly defines skills as “a specific aspect of an ability score,” and skill proficiency as representing a character being “particularly good at” a specific subset of ability checks with that score. Unless we are ignoring parts of the RAW that don’t support your point, we must understand skills as a specific aspect of ability checks.

Why are you focused on stealth checks? I am talking about stealth as a game element. Do you believe stealth isn't a game element?

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “game element,” yes, I do believe the Stealth skill is a game element. Specifically, it’s a proficiency which applies to a subset of Dexterity checks, as defined under the Stealth subheading in the Using Ability Scores section of the rules.

Possibly you don't mean everything you say here? If you do, then where the DM controls the NPC or monster, the DM makes the check.

Yes. Would you not, as a DM, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when a monster tries to “attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard,” and that action could fail and has an uncertain outcome? I certainly would. Likewise, I would make a Charisma (Intimidation) check when a monster “attempt(s) to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence,” and that action could fail and has an uncertain outcome. Of course, if the someone the monster is trying to influence in this way happens to be a PC, the outcome would not be uncertain, so I would not call for a check.