D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

It seems like you’re treating “attempt to persuade someone” and “make a CHA ability check” as essentially interchangeable, and proficiency in the persuasion skill as strong evidence that a creature is intended to be able to do that thing. This is not how I understand ability checks to work. In my understanding, all creatures can attempt to persuade someone, and if the creature’s attempt to do so has an uncertain outcome, the DM may call for a Charisma check to determine what happens. When the DM calls for an ability check (Charisma or otherwise) to resolve an attempt to influence someone with tact, social graces, or good nature, the creature can add its proficiency bonus to the check if it is proficient in Persuasion.

This is a subtle bit of strawmanning. I don't deny this is a perfectly valid description of play. However, if monsters are assigned proficiency in social skills, then this is an indication that this bonus is to be useful. If that bonus is to be useful, the the basic CHA bonus is also to be useful. The only way these can be useful is if it's not always certain for use against PCs, because that's the only way to get to those numbers being useful. So I actually rely on the normal loop of play for the argument, I don't discount it as you seem to suggest here.

The counter to this is that such bonuses are really only useful against other NPCs or monsters, but this implies strongly that GM solo play is expected by the rules, despite it not being mentioned anywhere. And I say GM solo play because any such usage has zero input from the PCs -- it's only the GM playing between they're NPCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Typically one is not called upon to prove a negative. Particularly in the case of an exceptions-based rules system such as D&D 5e. I have read the rules and not found there to be any cases of the rules instructing the DM to do this, which is why I say it is not supported in the rules. If someone makes the positive claim that it is supported in the rules, the burden of proof is on them to cite where they see this support.

Allowance is made for the GM to determine a thing is uncertain, though. There's no specific mention of any number of possible actions that GM can determine are uncertain and deploy ability checks. Asking for specific evidence of one is not showing anything at all -- this is a reiteration of the earlier arguments that suggest that since shove is explicitly provided additional rules/guidance, it's clear that other uses are not available because they are lacking. This is why I turned it around on you -- the claim you're asking for is equally silly to asking to prove a negative.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Try making a player roll to have their PC walk across a normal room. You'll find out in no uncertain terms what the outcome is.

What is it?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure I understand the concern about "two resolutions" for one action declaration then. It really just all flows through the play loop and adjudication process as normal so far as I can tell.

Indeed. My point is more that if an action declaration has two or more parts, even if only one part is stated, there needs to be a resolution for each individual part. In your examples this was the case, as not every resolution requires a roll every time. But when they do e.g. the tree is hard to climb AND the clue is hard to find once there, combining these things into one roll isn't granular enough.

Searching for a clue that isn't there results in failure with no roll because the outcome is certain.

And what matters next is how that failure is narrated. Me, I'd make a roll anyway (search rolls are always hidden here) because the PCs and thus players have as yet no way of knowing if they failed to find the clue because it isn't there to find or because it is there and they simply missed it.

 

[ReshiIRE]

What is it?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the outcome Swarmkeeper means would be that they would argue with you or perhaps leave the game if you don't have a specific reason for them to roll to walk.

The point being made I believe is that rolling to do basic non-combat character actions (in particular basic moving and interacting) in fiction without there being a compelling or interesting reason for uncertainty, especially outside of combat, is not going to go down well.

 

[Lanefan]

and or, like the example of looking for a clue in the tree that the DM knows no clue exists in you can call for that athletics climb and autofail/autosuccseed and say no clue.

The same way a Player (or DM) can not turn around and say "But I said I climb the tree to find the clue and I made the check to climb the tree" They also can not say "I made the intimidate check to make him let us by he can't yell in terror for help"

You climbed the tree and you intimidated... now the world is not under your control (by default of the game) but there is no clue and by scaring him instead of him doing what you want he yelled for help.

Next time it might be easier to just try intimidating the tree and have done with it...

 

[Lanefan]

You are invoking bad faith play to prove a point. The underlying assumption is that everyone at the table is there to achieve the goals of play: have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story.

The second one - the story - is your goal maybe, but not mine. If everyone's having a good time in the moment I don't much care if a story gets created or not.

 

[Mordhau]

Next time it might be easier to just try intimidating the tree and have done with it...

You know what they say. A man wish a tool proficiency can feed himself for a day. A man with intimidate can...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the outcome Swarmkeeper means would be that they would argue with you or perhaps leave the game if you don't have a specific reason for them to roll to walk.

The point being made I believe is that rolling to do basic non-combat character actions (in particular basic moving and interacting) in fiction without there being a compelling or interesting reason for uncertainty, especially outside of combat, is not going to go down well.

Yes, but this isn't a rules issue -- asking for that roll is perfectly fine within the rules. It's a social contract issue. And, to me, the discussion about whether or not you can use social skills against PCs also belongs firmly in the social contract as well. The actual rules are far to muddy and unclear to eke out a fully defensible claim to RAW or even RAI just using them. Heck, to find RAI you have to follow Jeremy on Twitter!

 

[Lanefan]

There are many, many things like that in the game.
"I want to attack the baddie with my sword and then punch him."
"Are you a monk?"
"No."
"Then, sorry, to make an off-hand attack you must be using two light weapons."
Did we just tell the player that they "aren't allowed to make that decision"?

Yep, you did; but realistically I should be able to try hitting someone* with my fist no matter whether my other hand is holding a sword or a flower basket or one end of a ship's mast and so as player I'd squawk about this one.

* - assuming, of course, that said someone is within my reach and that the fist hand is itself empty.