D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

A character (doesn’t really matter if it’s a PC or NPC) wants to frighten a monster, and doesn’t have any spells that can do so or doesn’t want to spend the spell slots. So they declare “I try to frighten the monster by acting all scary.” Since there is not a specific rule for how to resolve this action, the DM falls back on the general action resolution mechanics. Can this action succeed? Assuming the monster isn’t immune to fear or anything and the approach of “acting all scary” is something that could indeed frighten it. Can it fail? Sure, maybe the character acting all scary isn’t enough to scare the monster. Are there meaningful stakes? We’d need more context to determine that, but for the sake of argument let’s assume there are. So, the DM ought to call for an ability check to resolve this action, probably Charisma (Intimidation), and in this thought experiment, that would mean imposing the frightened condition on the monster.

I'll elaborate on this example: the DM could also decide that, no, there's absolutely no way this monster would be afraid of this character's antics. No roll, no intimidation. It's right there in the rules.

Now, the rules don't actually provide any guidance on how to handle the inverse situation. It may not be provable, but it's certainly reasonable....again, given the text on 185....that in the inverse situation the player is the one who adjudicates the effect on their own character. The DM gets to do that for the entire rest of the world, but the Player has authority over their own character. So if they say, "Nope, no chance," there's no chance.

Again, not RAW, but in my opinion (and it should be @Lanefan's!) that seems more logical than saying, "No, the DM gets to both declare NPC actions and adjudicate their outcome, even if it involves PCs."

 

[Charlaquin]

Am I misremembering the section in the DMG on resolving social interaction (on my phone atm)? I thought it was also expressed this way.

Hmm… it does seem to talk in terms of the adventurers interacting with a creature…

 

[Charlaquin]

Based on information that may vary depending on the social skill result, which in turn makes the result uncertain justifying a roll.

For the ability check result to be applied, an ability check must first be made, which requires uncertainty.

 

[Hriston]

@Charlaquin, let's for real go back to the OP. What if Persuasion was not about convincing a PC/NPC to do something as some sort of compulsion, but, rather, it was like the discussed framing of Stonetop? That is to say, you learn what it would take to persuade a PC/NPC (though maybe they can't be persuaded), though the NPC/PC still gets to decide. Would that not change the certainty of the outcome as per your usage? I.e., the players control the thoughts, actions, etc. of their characters?

I'm not @Charlaquin, but I think the problem with this suggestion (at least for me) is the use of an ability check for this purpose. There seems to be a correlation between those who would not call for an ability check to resolve an effort to influence a PC socially (and I count myself among them) and those for whom the result of an ability check is binding (among which I count myself as well). That's why I suggested (and use) inspiration for this purpose.

 

[clearstream]

No, it exists because of the order of operations.

As a thought experiment, let’s assume that it was possible to impose the Frightened condition on a creature with a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check.

A character (doesn’t really matter if it’s a PC or NPC) wants to frighten a monster, and doesn’t have any spells that can do so or doesn’t want to spend the spell slots. So they declare “I try to frighten the monster by acting all scary.” Since there is not a specific rule for how to resolve this action, the DM falls back on the general action resolution mechanics. Can this action succeed? Assuming the monster isn’t immune to fear or anything and the approach of “acting all scary” is something that could indeed frighten it. Can it fail? Sure, maybe the character acting all scary isn’t enough to scare the monster. Are there meaningful stakes? We’d need more context to determine that, but for the sake of argument let’s assume there are. So, the DM ought to call for an ability check to resolve this action, probably Charisma (Intimidation), and in this thought experiment, that would mean imposing the frightened condition on the monster.

Now repeat the same thought experiment, but imagine the character is trying to frighten a PC. Can this action succeed now? Well, the goal is to frighten the PC, which is something the character feels, and os therefore decided by the player. So, if the player decides they are not frightened, then it can’t succeed. Likewise, if they decide they are frightened, then it can’t fail. So, we never reach the point in the general action resolution process where an ability check is called for, which means the effects of a successful ability check are never able to be applied.

Now let’s suppose that the character, perhaps aiming to eliminate the possibility of failure in their actions, decides to spend the spell slot and cast cause fear instead of declaring a goal and approach. Now we have a specific rule telling us how to resolve this action, so we don’t have to rely on the general action resolution rules. The spell simply says “ The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become frightened of you until the spell ends.” No need to check for uncertainty, the rule explicitly tells us that the target must make a Wisdom saving throw.

This last can apply exactly as well to the social skills, which encourage a DM to call for a check. Except of course you exclude them from counting for... reasons.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not at all, you can assign a monster any hit dice you want, it's just the PCs which are restricted.

Which is a difference in how PCs and NPCs hit dice and hit points are calculated.

It's not that it can be applied to monsters, the rules explicitly tell you that it applies to them: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

Sure, just a difference of phrasing there.

The new format for spells is an option, it has not invalidated all the previous monsters spell lists.

Indeed it hasn’t, but monsters have had dice recharge abilities since the monster manual.

Exactly.

Yep.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin, let's for real go back to the OP. What if Persuasion was not about convincing a PC/NPC to do something as some sort of compulsion, but, rather, it was like the discussed framing of Stonetop? That is to say, you learn what it would take to persuade a PC/NPC (though maybe they can't be persuaded), though the NPC/PC still gets to decide. Would that not change the certainty of the outcome as per your usage? I.e., the players control the thoughts, actions, etc. of their characters?

Yes, of course it would.

 

[clearstream]

I'll elaborate on this example: the DM could also decide that, no, there's absolutely no way this monster would be afraid of this character's antics. No roll, no intimidation. It's right there in the rules

Exactly! A DM could rule no check, or they could call for a check. It depends on the case at hand.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not @Charlaquin, but I think the problem with this suggestion (at least for me) is the use of an ability check for this purpose. There seems to be a correlation between those who would not call for an ability check to resolve an effort to influence a PC socially (and I count myself among them) and those for whom the result of an ability check is binding (among which I count myself as well). That's why I suggested (and use) inspiration for this purpose.

I'm neither following the distinction you are trying to make here, nor how that applies to the aforementioned Parley/Persuade (vs. PC) move, nor how it's problematic that such a result would be binding.

For the ability check result to be applied, an ability check must first be made, which requires uncertainty.

Yes, of course it would.

I'll call that progress.

 

[Lyxen]

For the ability check result to be applied, an ability check must first be made, which requires uncertainty.

Which there is, since the information imparted by the social check will depend on the result of the roll, hence even if the reaction is fully in the hand of the player, it is uncertain what it's going to be.

And that is without even going in the domain where, as the DM, there is uncertainty about how the player will have his character react anyway.