D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

That which I bolded is just cruel and unusual!

I belong to the Rat Bastard GM club. It leaks out.

 

[Charlaquin]

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,

I would say “all text in the rulebook is rules text unless otherwise stated” is a more sound assumption than “some text in the rule book is not rules, but it is not explicitly indicated as such”.

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.)

So, two things. First of all, I disagree that Charm Person is not clear that it’s an exception to the player’s ability to decide what their character does. It explicitly says “If [the target creature] fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance.” That’s an explicit statement of what the affected creature does, which indeed contradicts the general rule that players decide what their characters do.

Second, I leave it up to the player what it means for their character to “regard [the caster of charm person] as a friendly acquaintance,” the same way it is left up to me to decide that for NPCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a DM that treats Persuasion as the equivalent of Mind Control, which is how CR does it. Even the most ludicrous suggestion will be obeyed by an NPC if the player rolls high enough. Two guards, elite professionals, were guarding a prisoner. Bard rolls a 27 and says "I want to see the prisoner". DM says OK. Now, in my world, the first part of that Stonetop mechanic would kick in, as there is zero chance of that ever happening, But as soon as you even allow the thinnest of wedges, with that 2nd part of the mechanic (like I said, I don't know what XP represents), a player will say "but I rolled super high, you must do what I say, otherwise it is no fun".

And this is why the play loop has the DM only call for rolls when success is possible (and failure is possible and the stakes are meaningful).

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

funny thing. I have for about a year been nurseing my "Charm=Evil" and in person, and on boards, even on TicTok mentioned I was going to do that...and I did, it is my post that started that.

I am also here to say I have 0 issue with social skills being used by any character (PC or NPC) on any character...

but I also say that intimadate especially, but bluff/persuade/diplomacy just diffrent are not "I get what i want " skills they are "You put out a level of X and now that character responds"

Then, as I described in that post have a huge logical inconsistency in your thought process.

Evil, per your definition, RAW Scenario #1:. NPC casts Suggestion on Player #1. Player makes and fails a Wisdom save. NPC says "You look tired, perhaps you should skip this guard duty, and go take a nap." Player #1 walks away and takes a nap.

Not evil, per your definition, RAW Scenario #2: NPC makes a Persuasion roll per the DM of 23, where DM sets the DC at 20. Per RAW, Player #1 has no ability to make a savings throw, or contested check. NPC says "You look tired, perhaps you should skip this guard duty, and go take a nap." Player #1 walks away, and considers taking a nap, maybe even doing so.

Or, if you don't like that, then swap out the scenario where the NPC and PC are haggling over the value of some magic item.

In scenario #1, the player has the ability to defend. In scenario #2, no such ability exists. And both have the same negative result for the player.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Certainly how to engage in social interaction and handle ability checks, in particular Charisma checks, are in the PHB, but the real meat of the rules, procedurally speaking, are in the DMG. But those are also presented as "use these only if you want more structure." I use them, but almost nobody else I've ever gamed with does, including my own DMs.

And even that “more structure” doesn’t give you unambiguous, step-by-step instructions to follow. I consider them to be guidelines or advice, not rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think our disagreement is on a very minor point. I agree that the DM can just rule (and hopefully narrate colorfully) the party losing to Orcus without using combat rules. But if the DM does call for initiative and formally enter combat, then in my view it's defying RAI to start mixing that with declaring hits and misses without rolling dice.

I agree that it’s not RAI for the DM to declare hits and misses a without calling for attack rolls in the midst of combat. But that’s because, while two or more parties are actively fighting each other, the outcome of an attempt by one party to incapacitate or kill another by hitting it with their weapon is pretty much always uncertain. It could succeed, could fail, and has meaningful stakes.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, there are not. There is only advice to the players on how the DM might decide to improvise, possibly using dice rolls, but there aren't rules. There is no "Attitude" score or "+1 to Attitude if you succeed against a DC of 15" or anything like that.

There are, in the DMG. NPCs start out as hostile, indifferent, or friendly towards the PCs, and there are guidelines for how successful social actions can change an NPC’s attitude to another category.

 

[clearstream]

Why would you need rules supporting the idea that monsters’ social skills can be used when interacting with other monsters? PCs’ social skills can be used when interacting with monsters, and nothing says monsters’ social skills are not meant to be used

The more natural reading given the framing of the Monster Manual overall, is that the skills are intended to be used on the player-characters. That's true even if the skills are also intended to be used on other monsters. The jarring reading is that certain skills - some not others - are intended only to be used on other monsters.

Right, these things are specific exceptions to the general rule that players decide what their characters do. The rules text explicitly calls out what happens to the character when these things occur.

It's a far broader and powerful exception: the consequences of game mechanics overrule player decisions for their characters.

That doesn’t seem to be in evidence to me.

It's not clear why. I can easily concede that it has in previous conversation not been made a point of.

The difference is, Dissonant Whispers explicitly states what a character must do when it affects them, making it an explicit exception to the rule that players decide what their characters do. The intimidate skill does not.

Here you are arguing that incomplete specification of consequences shifts a mechanic into a different category. I raised the Charm spell as a case in point and I believe that hasn't yet been adequately answered.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would say “all text in the rulebook is rules text unless otherwise stated” is a more sound assumption than “some text in the rule book is not rules, but it is not explicitly indicated as such”.

So, two things. First of all, I disagree that Charm Person is not clear that it’s an exception to the player’s ability to decide what their character does. It explicitly says “If [the target creature] fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance.” That’s an explicit statement of what the affected creature does, which indeed contradicts the general rule that players decide what their characters do.

Second, I leave it up to the player what it means for their character to “regard [the caster of charm person] as a friendly acquaintance,” the same way it is left up to me to decide that for NPCs.

It would almost be easier if they left out the 'friendly acquaintance' bit and just said, "imposes the Charmed condition." Then people could look that up and see what it explicitly prohibits. Whether or not they want to roleplay that as 'friendly acquaintance' would then be left up to them.

Friendly acquaintance by itself leaves the door open to, "I'm chaotic evil. That's how I treat friendly acquaintances. You should see how I treat in-laws."

In my application of terms, 'friendly acquaintance' is too ambiguous to be really useful (or well-written) as a rule, because it doesn't prescribe/proscribe game mechanics. On the other hand, "...can’t Attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful Abilities or magical Effects" is clearly a rule. (pasted from roll20)

 

[Charlaquin]

but the intimidate skill also doesn't say what NPCs or Monsters will do...

No, the player does, when they declare their action. This is why it’s important that the player describes both their goal (in this case, what they want to get the NPC to do) and their approach (in this case, what their character does to try and get them to do it.)