D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

Is there anything in the rules that says you can't try to "use Intimidate" on a tree?

Well, as I said a bit ago, the outcome is pretty certain, and I'm not sure there would be a meaningful consequence for your failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks. That was actually a really good synopsis.

My first reaction is that maybe you are using "Cha skills" as shorthand, but I think it's really about any action (that isn't a named ability with defined mechanics that explicitly override the general with the specific) that causes loss of decision-making. The simplest case is if the orc uses Strength (Intimidate) instead of Charisma (Intimidate). Or maybe it's an NPC trying to keep the PC's attention with Dexterity (Sleight-of-hand) card tricks. The point being that it's not that "Cha" has special rules, but that any attempt to get the PC to do something...again, in the absence of specific rules that override the general case...ultimately relies on the player agreeing to do it. It just so happens that the most obvious examples of that use Cha skills.

That might seem like just a semantic distinction, but part of your argument seems to rest on why this one attribute, out of six, is a special case. And I don't think it is.

This person gets it!

 

[Charlaquin]

If JC posted that social skills can't be used to influence PCs, why isn't somebody asking him on Twitter why some monsters have those proficiencies?

I don't really find "to be used on other NPCs" very persuasive. I think it's a roleplaying/narration cue...a "tag", if you will...for DMs.

I mean, I think they can be used in both ways. And both are perfectly legitimate reasons to include them in monster stat blocks.

 

[Maxperson]

If JC posted that social skills can't be used to influence PCs, why isn't somebody asking him on Twitter why some monsters have those proficiencies?

Did someone link that? I didn't see it, but I've been busy today and could easily have missed it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Did someone link that? I didn't see it, but I've been busy today and could easily have missed it.

Not that I saw. Ovinomancer referenced it, but didn’t link to it.

EDIT: I went ahead and googled it. Here’s an archive of the thread:

Redirect Notice

Interestingly, he does say that the DM can use the result of a Charisma check to inform their description of the action, just not to force the PC to think, act, or feel a certain way (I don’t think the RAW really supports that, but I don’t disagree with him that the DM can do that.) He also addresses use of Wisdom (Insight) and says that it can indeed be used to determine another PC’s emotional state, which seems to support my assertion that the rules don’t consider determining what a PC knows to be the same thing as forcing them to think a certain way.

 

[iserith]

Not that I saw. Ovinomancer referenced it, but didn’t link to it.

EDIT: I went ahead and googled it. Here’s an archive of the thread:

Redirect Notice

Interestingly, he does say that the DM can use the result of a Charisma check to inform their description of the action, just not to force the PC to think, act, or feel a certain way (I don’t think the RAW really supports that, but I don’t disagree with him that the DM can do that.) He also addresses use of Wisdom (Insight) and says that it can indeed be used to determine another PC’s emotional state, which seems to support my assertion that the rules don’t consider determining what a PC knows to be the same thing as forcing them to think a certain way.

Indeed the RAW doesn't support it since it's not actually an ability check when used this way. But as we've said the rules don't prevent the DM from making weighted rolls to inform their descriptions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Indeed the RAW doesn't support it since it's not actually an ability check when used this way. But as we've said the rules don't prevent the DM from making weighted rolls to inform their descriptions.

Yeah, he also said, “you can ask to make a Wisdom (Insight) check against anyone” which also doesn’t seem to be supported by the rules from what I can tell. I don’t tend to put much stock in JC’s rulings though.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, he also said, “you can ask to make a Wisdom (Insight) check against anyone” which also doesn’t seem to be supported by the rules from what I can tell. I don’t tend to put much stock in JC’s rulings though.

Right. Nothing in the rules supports the players asking to make ability checks. I think ultimately he's either using shorthand or talking about how he plays the game, not what the actual rules say. If the RAI is that players are supposed to ask to make checks, then the RAW must be very badly written because there's no way you can get to that intention from the text. What I think ultimately is that not even game designers are immune from picking up and keeping habits from other games.

 

[Mordhau]

I'm still somewhat bemused at the assumption that there is a correct interpretation to be made of the rules.

I don't see why that should be. Especially with this edition.

At times, it reads like an argument about the interpetation of scripture.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm still somewhat bemused at the assumption that there is a correct interpretation to be made of the rules.

I don't see why that should be. Especially with this edition.

At times, it seems reads an argument about the interpetation of scripture.

Words mean things. The rules say what they say. Whether one needs to follow the what the rules say as they say it is another question (to which the obvious answer is no, one does not. The rules even say as much.)