D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Exactly, it does not differentiate. And that cannot be set aside.


Here, you are reading the RAW to suit your argument. It does not say - in this case or that case. There is no such hedging.

Right, so the DM might call for a check. They also might not. The rest of the rules provide context for when it might happen and when it might not. For example, if the action doesn’t have a chance of failure, or it’s outcome isn’t uncertain, the DM won’t call for a check.

 

[clearstream]

What? Where does the text provided for skills say that??

I quoted it up-thread, but here again is an example

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.

 

[Aldarc]

This thread is just circling the drain at this point. I think that I will bow out of this thread now before my good will towards other posters goes with it.

 

[clearstream]

Right, so the DM might call for a check. They also might not. The rest of the rules provide context for when it might happen and when it might not. For example, if the action doesn’t have a chance of failure, or it’s outcome isn’t uncertain, the DM won’t call for a check.

You are making an unjustified reading, in order to suit your argument. There is no - do this if its PCs, that if its NPCs - conditioning. It is simply the case that if the listed things are being attempted - regardless who by and on - the DM might call for a check.

This is the circularity we keep coming back to. You keep reinserting the - is it against a PC test - into the RAW. The skills RAW doesn't contain that: it only comes from the general (putative) rule on PHB 185.

 

[Charlaquin]

I quoted it up-thread, but here again is an example

That says the DM might call for a Charisma (Intimidation) check when when [a character or monster attempts] to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. This leaves room for the possibility that the DM might not call for for a Charisma (Intimidation) check when when [a character or monster attempts] to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. An example of when a DM woukd not call for a Charidma (Intimidation) check is when the character or monster’s attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence doesn’t have a possibility of failure or isn’t uncertain.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are making an unjustified reading, in order to suit your argument. There is no - do this if its PCs, that if its NPCs - conditioning.

My argument does not rely on the existence of such conditioning.

It is simply the case that if the listed things are being attempted - regardless who by and on - the DM might call for a check.

Indeed they might, and they also might not. Since the text says the DM calls for a check when there’s a chance of failure and the outcome is uncertain, we can infer that they would not do so if there wasn’t a chance of failure or the outcome wasn’t uncertain.

This is the circularity we keep coming back to. You keep reinserting the - is it against a PC test - into the RAW. The skills RAW doesn't contain that: it only comes from the general (putative) rule on PHB 185.

Which the rules for skills do not contradict.

 

[iserith]

You are making an unjustified reading, in order to suit your argument. There is no - do this if its PCs, that if its NPCs - conditioning. It is simply the case that if the listed things are being attempted - regardless who by and on - the DM might call for a check.

Then we have to apply the rules for ability checks: uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure. And where it pertains to uncertainty, the rules for players deciding how their characters act.

It all works together with no contradiction.

 

[clearstream]

That says the DM might call for a Charisma (Intimidation) check when when [a character or monster attempts] to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. This leaves room for the possibility that the DM might not call for for a Charisma (Intimidation) check when when [a character or monster attempts] to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. An example of when a DM woukd not call for a Charidma (Intimidation) check is when the character or monster’s attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence doesn’t have a possibility of failure or isn’t uncertain.

Well, let us lodge another point of absolute disagreement on what the RAW says and entails then. The DM might in the skills is not hedged or conditioned in the way you put it. You are adding those words to suit your argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, let us lodge another point of absolute disagreement on what the RAW says and entails then. The DM might in the skills is not hedged or conditioned in the way you put it. You are adding those words to suit your argument.

It’s right here. I keep quoting it to you.

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.

 

[clearstream]

Then we have to apply the rules for ability checks: uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure. And where it pertains to uncertainty, the rules for players deciding how their characters act.

It all works together with no contradiction.

In the case of NPC to PC, what you say would make it impossible for the DM to call for a check, yet even in that case the skills RAW specifics say the DM might. Might implies is possible. In all cases. There is no conditioning for target in the skills RAW.