D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Yep this. I quite strongly feel that it is generally not fun to use ability social ability checks against PCs and it shouldn't be done, but nothing in the rules actually prohibits doing this.

Indeed, nothing in the rules prohibit it. However, nothing in the rules indicates that it is what is meant to be done either, and in an exceptions-based rule system (which D&D is), explicit instructions are required to constitute a rule.

I see that Iserith is again doing their thing where they insist that their interpretation of intentionally vague rules that allow multiple interpretations is the RAW and anything else is house rules. I think they blocked me after the last time I challenged them for doing this.

That really isn’t what’s going on. One rules interpretation is well-supported with specific citations from the rules. The other relies on assuming some of the text in the rule book is not rules text, and/or inferring some specific exceptions to the general rules that are not (as far as has been demonstrated in this thread) explicitly present in the text. That doesn’t mean the latter interpretation is house rules. It just means it is less epistemologically sound than the former.

 

[Charlaquin]

good, because I do not except your logic I do not except your debate club rules, and i do not think you get to decide what is and is not a valid reading of the rules.

Again, I am not claiming to make such decisions. I am simply applying the basic principles of epistemology. If you don’t accept them, we have no consistent basis on which to formulate meaning, so there is no point in discussing anything.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Indeed, nothing in the rules prohibit it. However, nothing in the rules indicates that it is what is meant to be done either, and in an exceptions-based rule system (which D&D is), explicit instructions are required to constitute a rule.

That really isn’t what’s going on. One rules interpretation is well-supported with specific citations from the rules. The other relies on assuming some of the text in the rule book is not rules text, and/or inferring some specific exceptions to the general rules that are not (as far as has been demonstrated in this thread) explicitly present in the text. That doesn’t mean the latter interpretation is house rules. It just means it is less epistemologically sound than the former.

Frankly, in D&D 5e the rules generally work same way for PCs and NPCs. If some specific skills were meant to be an exception to that, I would expect it to be specifically spelled out instead of being vaguely inferred.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I am not him but I can pick this up.

The idea is that the rules on ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence a PC can be read as a specific rule creating an exception to the general roleplay rule similar to how spells can.

The social interaction influencing rules that are not explicitly for NPCs only would then apply to a PC similar to how casting a spell on a PC will work on them. These are pretty vague and narrative.

The big picture would then be more of a game concept of try to roleplay these specific influences in roleplaying your character. This can create more stage direction type roleplay hooks as part of the game or it can create a closer match of roleplay to mechanics.

Some like this type of playing a specific mechanics driven role roleplaying, others prefer deciding their own role to a greater extent in their roleplaying.

Different styles and preferences.

This is certainly a fair assessment, in my view. Although, I see certain spells as the specific exception to the roleplaying rules here and not truly akin to ability checks at all.

It is a rules question and a lot of DM discretion in the RAW so there is a lot of DM rulings opportunities here. I would think this works best if everybody is clear on table expectations and on board with the style being used.

Absolutely.

My preference is generally for PC autonomy and that is the way I run my D&D games, but my read of the 5e rules is that it supports either style of play.

At some point, "rulings not rules" supports any style of play, though, right? In my experience, the more closely you can stick to the RAW in 5e with supportable logic, the smoother the game sessions become. I'm of the opinion that PC autonomy is a big one in 5e. There are plenty of interesting RP opportunities in the game without needing to have the dice (or DM or other players) dictate how one must/is expected to/should play their character. This assumes the shared goal, as outlined in the PHB, of having a good time and creating an exciting memorable story.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, in D&D 5e the rules generally work same way for PCs and NPCs.

That’s not accurate. There are many ways in which the rules for NPCs differ from the rules for PCs. The way their HP is calculated is a simple example, as is the way their proficiency bonuses are determined. In recent books, the rules for spellcasting are different between them as well.

If some specific skills were meant to be an exception to that, I would expect it to be specifically spelled out instead of being vaguely inferred.

If “NPCs use the same rules as PCs” was a general rule, I would agree that exceptions to it would need to be mentioned explicitly. However, I am not aware of anywhere that this is stated as a general rule, and my counter-examples above seem to me to demonstrate that it is not.

 

[HammerMan]

Again, I am not claiming to make such decisions. I am simply applying the basic principles of epistemology. If you don’t accept them, we have no consistent basis on which to formulate meaning, so there is no point in discussing anything.

this is a discussing board not a debate club, if you want to talk about how we play game great... I am not learning rules to debate you on my intperetations.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Frankly, in D&D 5e the rules generally work same way for PCs and NPCs. If some specific skills were meant to be an exception to that, I would expect it to be specifically spelled out instead of being vaguely inferred.

That’s not accurate. There are many ways in which the rules for NPCs differ from the rules for PCs. The way their HP is calculated is a simple example, as is the way their proficiency bonuses are determined. In recent books, the rules for spellcasting are different between them as well.

If “NPCs use the same rules as PCs” was a general rule, I would agree that exceptions to it would need to be mentioned explicitly. However, I am not aware of anywhere that this is stated as a general rule, and my counter-examples above seem to me to demonstrate that it is not.

Further, why does the entire Social Interaction section (DMG p244-245 as light as it is) deal with just calling for ability checks from the adventurers? If the DMG was meant to guide us in running NPCs in the same manner wouldn't there have been at least one sentence instructing us to do so? I mean, let's assume it was an oversight... anyone out there using the Conversation Reaction table to determine how the PCs feel after a Social Interaction?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s not accurate. There are many ways in which the rules for NPCs differ from the rules for PCs. The way their HP is calculated is a simple example, as is the way their proficiency bonuses are determined. In recent books, the rules for spellcasting are different between them as well.

If “NPCs use the same rules as PCs” was a general rule, I would agree that exceptions to it would need to be mentioned explicitly. However, I am not aware of anywhere that this is stated as a general rule, and my counter-examples above seem to me to demonstrate that it is not.

Yet it is also said that you can have NPCs build using PC rules. But that's not really even what I mean. They attack the same way, use actions the same way, they save the same way, and seem to use at least most of the skills in the same way. If it was the indented RAW (instead of just one way to do it) for them to use just handful of skills differently, whilst using the rest of them the same way, I would expect this to be stated. Note how the death saves section explicitly spells out that it tends to work differently for the NPCs.

 

[iserith]

okay lets answer these...
what does the player have to do: reat and play out there characters reaction
by whom and how is the DC being set (this I house rule ALOT becuse I don't like the DCs in the book, but) I will go with the book has guides.
what is the meaningful consequence of failur... well that depends on what they are trying to accoplish and how the PC react... if the orc rolls low maybe they get laughed at, or really low ignored... again this sin't a fully fleshed out scenero, but you know that.

okay

You are the only one saying force... find anywhere i suggest anyone force anything?

except in your strawman argument.

If you say (rightly) that the result of the orc's ability check to intimidate the PC cannot "force" the player to portray the character in any particular way, then what we have is the roll being used as a shorthand for describing the situation before the character. It serves no other purpose. Which is not what ability checks are designed to do per the rules. Fine to use them that way if that's what you're into instead of or in addition to descriptive words, but you can't correctly say that the rules support this approach. There is no DC. There is no way for the orc to fail. There is no uncertainty to the roll. It is all completely superfluous.

And it's not even a very good tool for how it's being used in my view. So, okay, the orc rolled a 24. What does that mean to the player? There's no DC to suggest it's beaten by the DC by a certain amount (which doesn't matter in D&D 5e either unless using degrees of failure or critical success/failure rules). It's a meaningless number.

 

[HammerMan]

Yet it is also said that you can have NPCs build using PC rules. But that's not really even what I mean. They attack the same way, use actions the same way, they save the same way, and seem to use at least most of the skills in the same way. If it was the indented RAW (instead of just one way to do it) for them to use just handful of skills differently, whilst using the rest of them the same way, I would expect this to be stated. Note how the death saves section explicitly spells out that it tends to work differently for the NPCs.

interesting point I wonder if athletics and arcana checks work different for NPCs if INtimadate does?