D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

becuse the outcome is in quastion, the quastion being how is this orc's cha and skill togather working into being intimadating...

what does it force the orc to do if the PC rolls intimadate?

sure I can, I just did

so you don't think the roll of 2+2 was a failur to be intimadating?

sure there is uncertainty, just like there is with an Arcana check (I the DM have the answer but does the NPC?) or an athletics check

I am so glad you dislike the tool... that means so much, and it's a good thing you said that cause I might have mistaken this whole argument for you liking it...

it is exactly as useless as a PC rolling a 24.

Except the outcome is not in question unless you change the use of an ability check from task resolution to something that informs the DM how to describe the environment. Which is not what the rules say to do.

As well, there is no way to tell if a 4 or a 24 is success at intimidation unless we have a DC. Which we don't have because there's no uncertainty here since the player decides how the character responds. We have no success or failure conditions either. It's a meaningless number.

I don't like or dislike the tool. I just think it's not very good at what you say it's used for. You could stop doing it today with no change in game play, provided you use actual words to describe the situation before the character.

 

[HammerMan]

From my understanding, you have been arguing for the DM to make a check for the NPC, and for the player to be expected to take the result of that check into account in deciding how their character responds.

and how does that play diffrent? what is the diffrence, I gave two play examples... what is the end result diffrence?

 

[iserith]

Unless you look at it as the CHA(intimidation) roll is used to resolve a task being performed by the NPC where the outcome, determined by the player running the PC the CHA(intimidation check) is directed toward, is unknown by the DM. Then, the 24 has all the meaning the player of the PC chooses to give it.

Still not in line with the rules for ability checks. There is no DC and players don't set the DC - the DM does. Fine if you want to use it that way, but not in supported by the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

Except the outcome is not in question unless you change the use of an ability check from task resolution to something that informs the DM how to describe the environment. Which is not what the rules say to do.

you are just making stuff up now.

the roll determains how good the npc/monster is at a skill... just like an arcana check.

As well, there is no way to tell if a 4 or a 24 is success at intimidation unless we have a DC.

so the book helps you set the DC, this is one of the rules I do not like and as such DO HOUSE RULE, so I am no help at RAW setting DCs.

Which we don't have because there's no uncertainty here since the player decides how the character responds. We have no success or failure conditions either. It's a meaningless number.

it is only meaningless if you ignore that it is the ingame ability of X to do Y

I don't like or dislike the tool. I just think it's not very good at what you say it's used for.

and I think you are more interested in arguing then listening. You can dislike my reading of the rules, just don't pretend I am NOT reading the rules.

You could stop doing it today with no change in game play,

and you could start doing it today with no change. (unless you can show me some example where the end result is different)

 

[HammerMan]

Still not in line with the rules for ability checks. There is no DC and players don't set the DC - the DM does. Fine if you want to use it that way, but not in supported by the rules.

not supported by your narrow reading of the rules... fully supported by my reading of the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

For the love... if you have done so, then link to them. Or quote them. Or copy & paste them as a response.
We ALL can't possibly be missing ALL your rules quotes and page references annotated with your interpretation. So something else must be going on here, yes?

post 189

Page 179:
"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk."

It seems to completely be consistent with a PC trying to persuade another PC and the DM then might call for a check.

 

[Maxperson]

I just went through the MM through the letter D. I found two, count them TWO monsters with intimidation. Bugbear Chief and Cambion. No demon has. No devil has it. No dragon has it. As for persuasion, one evil dragon has it and three good ones. So a total of 4 monsters have persuasion. It's almost as if the creators are going out of their way not to give those skills to the monsters who interact with PCs. I wonder why.

As for those very, very few creatures that actually have intimidation and persuasion, there are RP reasons and/or reasons why these monsters would interact with other NPCs to use those skills.

 

[Maxperson]

if you don't believe in 1 true way of playing? Why do you believe in 1 true way of reading the rule?

Those are not mutually exclusive things. I can fully believe in tens of thousands of ways to play this game(no one true way to play), while still stating that there is still only 1 correct way to read a clearly written rule.

For specific to beat general, per the very clearly written rule, there has to be a specific contradiction to the general rule happening. No specific contradiction, no specific beats general. That does not mean that you cannot create an exception yourself as a house rule and be playing the game in a perfectly valid manner.

 

[Charlaquin]

and that is why no matter how much logic, no matter how many debate points you make, we disagree on something you can not prove... unless you can prove that there is never uncertainty (when plenty here have told you there is).

and again I dare you to find me an example of me not letting a player decide what the character does.

If the player decides what their character does, the outcome is not uncertain. It is certain that the character will do what the player decides they do.

except we have and you ignore them becuse they don't fit the logic you want.

No, @Voadam has cited the rules for ability checks and made the argument that if you interpret that section as an exception, that would mean that the outcome of the NPC’s action is uncertain. That argument is logically valid (it’s conclusion follows logically from its foundational assumptions), but has not been proven to be logically sound (it’s foundational assumptions have not been proven to be true), because no explicit exception to the general rule has been indicated in the cited text. You (you specifically) are trying to say that an explicit exception has been indicated in that text and that I just didn’t like it, but if that’s the case, I apparently missed it, because in Vodam’s quotation of the rules I do not see any explicit statement that the outcome of an ability check can override the player’s ability to decide what their character does. This is why I say you are rejecting basic epistemology, and arguing with you is therefore pointless.

You (you specifically) have also said that you don’t interpret the text stating that the player decides what their character does as a rule. This, too, is logically valid (if it’s not a rule, then the outcome of an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC is indeed uncertain), but not as logically sound as my position, since it relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules text in order to be valid, whereas my position does not rely on any such assumption.

 

[billd91]

Still not in line with the rules for ability checks. There is no DC and players don't set the DC - the DM does. Fine if you want to use it that way, but not in supported by the rules.

Ultimately, it's just a bit of sharing of the DM's responsibilities because rolling the NPC's social skill checks and having the player adjudicate success essentially puts the player in the DM's role. From that perspective, the method conforms reasonably well to the rules.
I don't know that declaring that doing so isn't supported by the rules is a horse worth beating to death.