D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

But frankly, the DM just deciding that the PC cannot use their social skills they invested character creation resources in is not great. The GM gets to decide what happens, but it would not be cool if when you declare that you want to attack an enemy, the GM just declared that the enemy dodges without letting you to roll. The general assumption is the the players can use their PCs skills to get the things they want.

That comparison...between social skills and attack rolls...keeps coming up, but it's misleading.

First, the rules for the two things are very different. There are explicit, specific rules for action resolution and consequences for some situations, most notably (but not exclusively) combat. Then there are all the things that aren't covered by rules. Things that, dare I say, are largely what differentiate RPGs from non-RPGs, because they are what make possible the idea that you get to do anything you want...talking to bartenders, building a raft, burglarizing the keep....not just the specific scenarios described by rules. And there's one universal rule for all those situations. (Describe goal and approach, DM adjudicates, possibly asking for a roll.)

So, no, it would not be cool if the DM just decided that your attack missed, without an attack roll, if otherwise your attempt to attack met the parameters (range, vision, ability to act, etc.). But that's just an entirely different thing.

You may not like that the return on your "investment" in social skills is subject to DM whim, but it is. That's just a feature of the game.

(Also, for the most part wherever you "invested" those points would be subject to the same rule. Whatever skills you choose are subject to the same DM whim, with a few exceptions...i.e. the way Athletics/Acrobatics are used in Grappling. Your choice of Persuasion doesn't come at the cost of sword skill, or spell slots, for example.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

that would get at least 2 people I know to red card right there to stop the game... maybe 3. that is WAY too graphic.

We agree on something.

 

[HammerMan]

Ability checks aren’t something the player “uses” at their leisure, and players cannot “use social skill mechanics” to force an NPC to act however they want. At the core of D&D 5th edition is the basic pattern of play wherein the DM describes the environment, the players describe what their characters do, and the DM describes the results. If necessary, the DM may call for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to determine the results if they are uncertain what the results will be. So no, a player can’t force an NPC to do whatever they want, because it is always within the DM’s power to determine how the NPC reacts and describe the results without calling for a roll. And even if the DM is uncertain, they set the terms for what the results of success and failure on the check (or attack or save) are.

why is it you can see that no player can force an NPC but not that no NPC can force a player? that the stats are used when thing (in both directions) are uncertain...

 

[iserith]

You may not like that the return on your "investment" in social skills is subject to DM whim, but it is. That's just a feature of the game.

And, not that anyone actually reads the DMG - especially not experienced DMs - but it does provide an implicit endorsement of balancing ruling automatic success with calling for ability checks. This is referred to as the "Middle Path" and it has no drawbacks as compared to methods where the DM calls for a lot of rolls versus very few.

As a player, I don't want to roll. I'm going to usually engage in tasks for which I have a good ability score and skill or tool proficiency in case I have to roll, but I'm going to put some amount of effort into removing the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence, if it's possible. That's because automatic success is better than relying on a fickle d20, provided success is my goal. This doesn't diminish my investment in those ability scores, skills, or tool proficiencies; rather, it just makes them into a form of "insurance" just in case I have to roll. If I'm generally engaged in boldly confronting deadly perils and otherwise dealing with situations that have meaningful stakes where there is some amount of opposition, I'll still probably be rolling quite a bit relative to the session time. Which is also why I'm going to play to my personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws in order to bank Inspiration so that I can bend the curve in my favor. This is a very good positive feedback loop for play!

 

[HammerMan]

If the player wants to roll intimidate I would be asking them both how and what they want to achieve. The last part is necessary to determine success of failure - do you want the jailer to give you his keys or do you want to make him run away?

That's where it gets difficult in reverse. The NPCs wants to roll a die to intimidate the PC in order to do something specific. This doesn't really work. It's one thing to tell a Player their character is scared. It's another thing to tell them that because they're scared they're going to give up a specific bit of information.

Some games handle this in specific ways. You might be given an XP bonus if you do comply - but don't have to. You may have some kind of penalty. In Forbidden lands you can either comply or enter combat. In exalted 3rd edition or A Song of Ice and Fire, you have to apply unless you are willing to spend a point of metacurrency.

5e has none of this. To all intents and purposes it seems no thought has been given to this at all.

I guess i am both more leniant (I don't care if a player says they want to use a skill) and more harsh (ssuccesss in the skill does not mean the desired results)

see the dogs growling and guy falling backwards but still not taking less money...

 

[Maxperson]

that would get at least 2 people I know to red card right there to stop the game... maybe 3. that is WAY too graphic.

Okay. Nobody in my game would care. Every table is different.

 

[HammerMan]

Okay. Nobody in my game would care. Every table is different.

but it is also a great example of why you shouldn't assume your way will work everywhere...and why the phrase "I intimadet him" is perfect for some games.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

That comparison...between social skills and attack rolls...keeps coming up, but it's misleading.

First, the rules for the two things are very different. There are explicit, specific rules for action resolution and consequences for some situations, most notably (but not exclusively) combat. Then there are all the things that aren't covered by rules. Things that, dare I say, are largely what differentiate RPGs from non-RPGs, because they are what make possible the idea that you get to do anything you want...talking to bartenders, building a raft, burglarizing the keep....not just the specific scenarios described by rules. And there's one universal rule for all those situations. (Describe goal and approach, DM adjudicates, possibly asking for a roll.)

So, no, it would not be cool if the DM just decided that your attack missed, without an attack roll, if otherwise your attempt to attack met the parameters (range, vision, ability to act, etc.). But that's just an entirely different thing.

You may not like that the return on your "investment" in social skills is subject to DM whim, but it is. That's just a feature of the game.

(Also, for the most part wherever you "invested" those points would be subject to the same rule. Whatever skills you choose are subject to the same DM whim, with a few exceptions...i.e. the way Athletics/Acrobatics are used in Grappling. Your choice of Persuasion doesn't come at the cost of sword skill, or spell slots, for example.)

Getting back to the title of the thread, using ability checks against another player is a form of PvP, and most DM's I know ban that from a table.

Further, those people that seem to care about "player agency" (I frankly don't) should lose their minds at the idea of another player (or NPC) using some DC based skill check against their player, since the player who is "the focus of the ability check" has ZERO agency. That player has no part in the activity. The DM sets a DC for the activity, and the active player makes a roll. The "focusee" has no participation in the activity, and must abide by the roll of the other player against the DC set by the DM.

There was a massive thread where a number of people said that charm based spells were "evil". In almost every charm based spell, the "focusee" gets some kind of savings throw. That is not the case with a Persuasion check initiated by the DM and another player.

If the people that hate charm based spells have any logical consistency they should hate various ability checks even more.

Lastly, doing some math, I will throw out the example of an Eloquence Bard. That Bard will almost certainly have Expertise in Persuasion and/or Deception and/or Intimidation. At 3rd level the minimum a char would roll, assuming Prof in a CHA based ability check, is a 15 (16 in CHA score) . Now let's extrapolate that char out to 9th level. That minimum just became 10 + 5 (CHA =20) + 10 (expertise) = 25. Let's tack on a Luck Stone for good measure. The MINIMUM said char rolls is a 26. Beating a DC of 30 occurs 35% of the time.

To allow a char the option to use such a weapon against another char is a horrible decision. And I am just visualizing the reactions at my table if I said "the NPC Eloquence Bard just rolled a 32 on Persuasion, and it makes sense for you to come with the bard, alone, into the bowels of the Dark Keep".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Getting back to the title of the thread, using ability checks against another player is a form of PvP, and most DM's I know ban that from a table.

Further, those people that seem to care about "player agency" (I frankly don't) should lose their minds at the idea of another player (or NPC) using some DC based skill check against their player, since the player who is "the focus of the ability check" has ZERO agency. That player has no part in the activity. The DM sets a DC for the activity, and the active player makes a roll. The "focusee" has no participation in the activity, and must abide by the roll of the other player against the DC set by the DM.

There was a massive thread where a number of people said that charm based spells were "evil". In almost every charm based spell, the "focusee" gets some kind of savings throw. That is not the case with a Persuasion check initiated by the DM and another player.

If the people that hate charm based spells have any logical consistency they should hate various ability checks even more.

Lastly, doing some math, I will throw out the example of an Eloquence Bard. That Bard will almost certainly have Expertise in Persuasion and/or Deception and/or Intimidation. At 3rd level the minimum a char would roll, assuming Prof in a CHA based ability check, is a 15 (16 in CHA score) . Now let's extrapolate that char out to 9th level. That minimum just became 10 + 5 (CHA =20) + 10 (expertise) = 25. Let's tack on a Luck Stone for good measure. The MINIMUM said char rolls is a 26. Beating a DC of 30 occurs 35% of the time.

To allow a char the option to use such a weapon against another char is a horrible decision. And I am just visualizing the reactions at my table if I said "the NPC Eloquence Bard just rolled a 32 on Persuasion, and it makes sense for you to come with the bard, alone, into the bowels of the Dark Keep".

All that is why I started the thread, with that (eventually fixed) reference from Stonetop: it’s a resolution mechanic that allows the targeted player to completely opt out of “social PvP” if they so desire, while also dangling a carrot to engage, on their own terms.

(Which, upon further reflection, is functionally equivalent to @iserith’s pvp resolution mechanic, with a bit more structure.)

Did you read the post, or are you responding only to the thread title?

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, let me start by saying that I do not let social skills affect PCs in my 5e games. This is, however, because I make it explicit as a table rule that they do not. The 5e rules actually make no case either way.

That comparison...between social skills and attack rolls...keeps coming up, but it's misleading.

First, the rules for the two things are very different. There are explicit, specific rules for action resolution and consequences for some situations, most notably (but not exclusively) combat. Then there are all the things that aren't covered by rules. Things that, dare I say, are largely what differentiate RPGs from non-RPGs, because they are what make possible the idea that you get to do anything you want...talking to bartenders, building a raft, burglarizing the keep....not just the specific scenarios described by rules. And there's one universal rule for all those situations. (Describe goal and approach, DM adjudicates, possibly asking for a roll.)

There is no difference between the combat rules and social skill rules how you're making it. That they're of different resolutions is trivial to the point -- yes, combat rules are a higher resolution than non-combat rules in 5e. This isn't sufficient to say that there are categorically different, however. They both are tools for the GM in situations where the GM determines that there is uncertainty and chooses to use the system to resolve that uncertainty. The difference isn't one of kind, but degree. The combat rules are more detailed and provide a clearer context for what it to be usually considered uncertain and how that uncertainty is resolved. They aren't different from social rules in the critical sense for this discussion -- they resolve uncertainty after the GM has made that determination and chosen to use those mechanics to resolve it.

So, no, it would not be cool if the DM just decided that your attack missed, without an attack roll, if otherwise your attempt to attack met the parameters (range, vision, ability to act, etc.). But that's just an entirely different thing.

While I agree, it would not be a violation of the basic play loop or the authority of the GM to do so. 5e puts almost no constraints on the GM's authority to determine outcomes however the GM wishes and leaves such constraints to the social contract at the table (and, generally, the the social zeitgeist of the hobby). It's not actually a different thing, though, as far as the system is concerned. Need to be careful about importing meta-concerns into an evaluation of what rules are.

You may not like that the return on your "investment" in social skills is subject to DM whim, but it is. That's just a feature of the game.

(Also, for the most part wherever you "invested" those points would be subject to the same rule. Whatever skills you choose are subject to the same DM whim, with a few exceptions...i.e. the way Athletics/Acrobatics are used in Grappling. Your choice of Persuasion doesn't come at the cost of sword skill, or spell slots, for example.)

Technically, the RoI for everything on you sheet is subject to GM whim. There's no guarantee that anything you've chosen will be a) honored or b) relevant. Again, 5e leaves such things to the table social contract -- it does not choose to define it in any way.


The case for social skills being applied to PC is about as strong as the case for them not being applicable. Both rest on flimsy assumptions. (The one for not-applicable starts earlier in assuming the description for roleplaying is a general rule to start, but also that exceptions must be clearly stated for them to be actual exceptions. In reality, the Charm Person spell is not clear it's an exception exactly as the Persuasion skill is not clear it's an exception. To be logical, you'd have to either include or exclude both -- or make a conscious choice to alter the rules.)