D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

Not by the way the rules are written. There's no support for that and we know that RAI is for that not to happen. All support in the rules is for social skills to be able to alter how NPCs think and behave, not the other way around.

I'm not sure what you mean here exactly.

Let's say NPC Q has disguised himself as NPC Z. If no PC questions that deception, there is no roll. The player thinks that NPC Q is NPC Z, therefore his PC thinks the same thing. At no point was any ability check or skill involved.

What happens if NPC K (who knows NPC Z better than any of the PCs) questions the deception, independent of the PCs but in their presence?

Or flip it around: let's say PC A has disguised herself as PC D in order to, say, get into somewhere that PC A can't normally go. How, if at all, can an NPC mechanically question that deception?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Black widow (I don't think it is a super spoiler since I am not putting details) has a great example of charm not letting you attack when you really want to.

 

[Maxperson]

What happens if NPC K (who knows NPC Z better than any of the PCs) questions the deception, independent of the PCs but in their presence?

I imagine that would get the PCs wondering and they'd examine that NPC closer and perhaps they'd find out that it was a disguise. Or maybe they disguised NPC would know things that would allow him to get away with it. No idea without it actually happening in a game.

Or flip it around: let's say PC A has disguised herself as PC D in order to, say, get into somewhere that PC A can't normally go. How, if at all, can an NPC mechanically question that deception?

NPCs have insight. Perhaps the PC would be caught, and perhaps the PC would get away with it. Seeing through a PC disguise is not something an NPC cannot do in 5e, so there would be risk.

 

[Lanefan]

I imagine that would get the PCs wondering and they'd examine that NPC closer and perhaps they'd find out that it was a disguise. Or maybe they disguised NPC would know things that would allow him to get away with it. No idea without it actually happening in a game.

I was asking more on a rules-based level - would NPC K get a roll to see through NPC Z's deception, or does NPC K have to prompt a PC to do something in order to invoke a roll? (put another way, can the DM call for a roll against herself?)

NPCs have insight. Perhaps the PC would be caught, and perhaps the PC would get away with it. Seeing through a PC disguise is not something an NPC cannot do in 5e, so there would be risk.

Again, though, how does this work in the rules? Does the player get to roll something to see how effective her disguise is, or does the DM get to invoke a roll to see through the disguise?

 

[Maxperson]

I was asking more on a rules-based level - would NPC K get a roll to see through NPC Z's deception, or does NPC K have to prompt a PC to do something in order to invoke a roll? (put another way, can the DM call for a roll against herself?)

I'd probably roll behind the scene to see if the NPC suspects the one in disguise. Success would be the NPC speaking about something being off. Failure would result in no suspicion.

Again, though, how does this work in the rules? Does the player get to roll something to see how effective her disguise is, or does the DM get to invoke a roll to see through the disguise?

Disguise is a deception roll if it's necessary. If there is a situation where an NPC might see through it, it will be PC deception vs. NPC insight at that time.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, I think Maxperson has the right of it here. Though, the DM choosing actions for NPCs (which I agree can also happen outside of combat, though it is more structured in combat due to the turn order) is functionally very similar to the step in the play loop where the players describe what their characters do. Essentially, when the DM chooses an action for an NPC or monster, they are stepping into the role of that NPC’s or monster’s “player” for the purposes of deciding and describing what that NPC or monster does.

Which becomes a play loop within a play loop since we need to accommodate a player who wants their PC to take a reaction. The NPC/monster action becomes both step 2 with a DM taking on the "player" role as well as step 1 description of the "environment" (from the perspective of the player). Play loop inception? Play loop nesting dolls?

 

[billd91]

Truthfully, I don’t. It’s because I’m still having a hard time un-learning habits from previous edition. And some of the players in my group don’t even try to in-learn those lessons, so they’ll say “I’ll make an Investigation check…” while reaching for their dice, and half the time I let it slide.

But when I’m reflecting and self-critiquing after the session, I’ll try to think about how I could have done it better, and I improve a little each time.

Honestly, there‘s not a big difference between saying “I’ll make an investigation check” and ”I’m going to investigate”. It’s just style of play. So if you want to encourage your players to be more specific about their actions so you, as DM, can adjudicate whether they even need to roll or not, but occasionally don’t do it, the game is fine.

 

[Faolyn]

Third, it doesn't mean that they will easily be led into believe anything the caster says. They only get advantage on rolls, but if there's never a roll(the outcome isn't in doubt), then they fail. You could almost certainly convince the charmed merchant to give you 10% off, but you would fail if you wanted him to give you stuff for free.

I never said that Being easily led to believing anything the caster says means "will do things out of character for the target."

If Maria the caster casts charm person on Bob the merchant, Bob will have no immediate reason to be suspicious of Maria--the spell ensures that Bob views Maria as a decent enough person. If Maria tells Bob to give her something for free, then unless Bob is the type of merchant who normally gives or lends out stuff for free in the first place.

If Maria swears up and down that she'll give it back, she just needs it for a moment, and then makes a good Deception roll (made with advantage!), then there's a pretty good chance that Bob will believe her. By which I mean, he will believe that Maria is being honest here, that she intends to bring back the thing. This assumes that Bob doesn't know Maria or has reason to believe she's a liar (assuming she is lying here).

Depending on Bob's personality, he may give her the item (believing he'll soon get it back), offer it in exchange for collateral ("I'll hold on to your bags while you do whatever it is you need the thing for"), offer it at a decent discount (which may be more than 10%), or simply say no ("I wish I could help, but I can't afford to have that item lost or damaged. I'm sure you'd try your best to keep it intact, but things happen"). What Bob won't do is immediately say that Maria is a lying thief or something like that, because friendly acquaintances don't do that.

And this would be the case if Bob was a PC, too, because the spell made him see Maria as a friendly acquaintance. You, the DM, simply tell the PC that Maria certainly seems honest and sincere here. Hopefully the player--who should probably know they've been charmed--will be willing to play along or come up with a reason to deny the request to this friendly acquaintance. And this reason can be a complete lie, of course ("I can't give you this thing! It's my very favorite thing! My grandmother made it for me!"), but the PC shouldn't just attack, as PCs are wont to do. Because in character, Maria seems honest and sincere.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly, there‘s not a big difference between saying “I’ll make an investigation check” and ”I’m going to investigate”.

There actually is a pretty substantial difference. The former automatically puts the situation in doubt, since a roll can be failed. The latter leaves it open for the DM to grant an auto success.

 

[billd91]

There actually is a pretty substantial difference. The former automatically puts the situation in doubt, since a roll can be failed. The latter leaves it open for the DM to grant an auto success.

Since the DM, in the former situation, can still say “no need to roll, you got it” or set the DC to a trivial value, the difference isn’t substantial. At all.