D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

You keep repeating that is if it's somehow evidence that social skills(persuasion, diplomacy and intimidate) are the same. They aren't. A class ability that is a SPECIFIC exception is not the same as social skills that have no specific exception/contradiction in them anywhere.

It's an example of a game mechanic deciding the behaviour of a character. A player can decide their character is frightened of a foe, but even if they don't menacing attack can determine that they are frightened.

 

[Maxperson]

It's an example of a game mechanic deciding the behaviour of a character.

Literally nobody has argued that there aren't specific mechanics than can do so. What Menacing Strike isn't, is a social skill.

I'll be back later. time to get some sleep.

 

[clearstream]

What do these have to do with social skills?

The text in the PHB is generally addressed to player characters or adventurers. However, it contains rules that reasonably must apply equally to NPCs.

 

[clearstream]

Literally nobody has argued that there aren't specific mechanics than can do so. What Menacing Strike isn't, is a social skill.

I'll be back later. time to get some sleep.

Of course! I look forward to resuming

 

[Mordhau]

And I pointed out that 2 monsters in the MM from A-D have intimidate, and 4 have persuasion. Not one Angel, Demon, Devil or Dragon can has the intimidate skill. And only 4 dragons(3 of which are good) have persuasion. 85 monsters and only 6 have those skills.

If these skills were supposed to be used against PCs and not say for use against other NPCs or to inform the DM on how to roleplay them, many more monsters would have those skills. I mean, the whole devil schtick is to persuade people to make deals, except not one of them is actually proficient in it.

I think it's more likely they would have them to use against PCs than against other NPCs. (How many GMs are going to make skill rolls between NPCS?).

Giving monsters proficiencies to tell you how to roleplay them doesn't make much sense when you could just give guidance about how to role-play them (and one would think that if they intended proficiencies to be read as role-playing guides then they would have said that somewhere - as it's by no means obvious).

Of course, the monsters may just have them because someone thought they would logically have it and didn't give it much more thought than that.

In fact if only some monsters have them, and, as you say, monsters that logically would have these proficiencies don't, then it seems likely that the monsters were designed by different people who were making slightly different assumptions. And that quite likely the issue of skills being used against PCs was never really discussed at all - which again would suggest that the game takes no position on this at all.

 

[clearstream]

I think it's more likely they would have them to use against PCs than against other NPCs. (How many GMs are going to make skill rolls between NPCS?).

Giving monsters proficiencies to tell you how to roleplay them doesn't make much sense when you could just give guidance about how to role-play them (and one would think that if they intended proficiencies to be read as role-playing guides then they would have said that somewhere - as it's by no means obvious).

Of course, the monsters may just have them because someone thought they would logically have it and didn't give it much more thought than that.

In fact if only some monsters have them, and, as you say, monsters that logically would have these proficiencies don't, then it seems likely that the monsters were designed by different people who were making slightly different assumptions. And that quite likely the issue of skills being used against PCs was never really discussed at all - which again would suggest that the game takes no position on this at all.

I don't find the count of monsters argument reasonable. Foremost, around sixty monsters in the core Monster Manual have one or other of the social skills - deception, intimidation or persuasion. By comparison, only a dozen or so have athletics, which no one seems to doubt can be used against PCs. Counting from A-D is arbitrary, and assumptions about what demons etc should or shouldn't have are just that - assumptions.

Secondarily, the argument that deciding by count of appearances doesn't hold water. Only two monsters in the MM have sneak attack, so if we believe that count of monsters with a feature establishes whether that feature can be used against PCs, then surely we need to also believe that foes can't use sneak attack against PCs!?

Or we can carve out skills, and yet not all skills! We may have good motives for doing so, but we can't say that those motives find concrete foundation in the rules.

 

[clearstream]

Literally nobody has argued that there aren't specific mechanics than can do so. What Menacing Strike isn't, is a social skill.

Is it right then, that we agree that game mechanics can override player decisions about their characters? So that the character behaves as the mechanic would have them, rather than as the player might decide. We agree that such mechanics include spells, and magical and non-magical features, right?

Would you agree that by RAW, an NPC can use Insight to learn that a character is lying to them?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Menacing Attack?

Menacing Attack is a Battlemaster Maneuver that explicitly has the possibility of imposing the Frightened condition upon a creature. Clear enough rule, right?

Now, can you show us where in the rules it explicitly details that an attempt to intimidate a creature has a chance of imposing the Frightened condition? Or, more specifically, where in the rules it states that the success state for a Charisma(Intimidation) ability check is that the target of said intimidating action is now suffering the Frightened condition?

 

[clearstream]

Menacing Attack is a Battlemaster Maneuver that explicitly has the possibility of imposing the Frightened condition upon a creature. Clear enough rule, right?

Now, can you show us where in the rules it explicitly details that an attempt to intimidate a creature has a chance of imposing the Frightened condition? Or, more specifically, where in the rules it states that the success state for a Charisma(Intimidation) ability check is that the target of said intimidating action is now suffering the Frightened condition?

Yes, the rules on Intimidate describe what that skill can do. For example, Intimidate can pry information from a prisoner.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes, the rules on Intimidate describe what that skill can do. For example, Intimidate can pry information from a prisoner.

But I asked a very specific question: do the rules on Intimidate explicitly describe that the skill imposes the Frightened condition on the target?