D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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."

Yeah, while I don’t think the rules support this way of handling actions targeting PCs, I think it would be a great house rule.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Great. So far we're on the same page.

So, when a monster declares a goal and an approach...which isn't even touched on in the rules...and the goal is to influence how a PC "thinks, acts, or talks"...which is explicitly assigned to the Player's authority...who gets to play that adjudication role? The rules say nothing on this, so it's up to us to decide. What makes the most sense? What answer doesn't contradict the text?

 

[Charlaquin]

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 think the key dividing factor here is in how we view ability checks. Folks arguing with me keep talking about “using social skills” like that’s a thing in the 5e rules. I think for those who conceptualize ability checks as actions, instead of a step in the process for resolving actions, my argument probably seems like nonsense.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the key dividing factor here is in how we view ability checks. Folks arguing with me keep talking about “using social skills” like that’s a thing in the 5e rules. I think for those who conceptualize ability checks as actions, instead of a step in the process for resolving actions, my argument probably seems like nonsense.

Whether I conceptualize ability checks as a step in the process for resolving actions or not doesn't fundamentally change whether or not I see your argument as circular nonsense or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

What are you talking about? Social skills are not actions, they’re a source of bonuses on a subset of ability checks. Ability checks are not actions, they’re a step in the action resolution process; a step which comes after determining uncertainty, if uncertainty is established. An action that is resolved by the general action resolution process can either succeed (if it has no chance of failure or no stakes), fail (if it has no chance of success), or be resolved with an ability check. An action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to think, feel, or do something succeeds if the player decides it does, or fails if the player decides it does. There is no opportunity for an ability check of any kind to be made, because based on the goal, the process for resolving it says it should succeed or fail. If a more specific process governs the resolution of the action, such as the spellcasting rules, then none of this is relevant to the resolution process of that action.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which there is, since the information imparted by the social check will depend on the result of the roll,

A roll is made only if there is uncertainty. You are relying on the assumption of a roll being made to establish uncertainty. That is circular.

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.

That’s not really relevant for the purposes of establishing the possibility of success and failure, which is the uncertainty we care about in the general action resolution process.

 

[clearstream]

Great. So far we're on the same page.

So, when a monster declares a goal and an approach...which isn't even touched on in the rules...and the goal is to influence how a PC "thinks, acts, or talks"...which is explicitly assigned to the Player's authority...who gets to play that adjudication role? The rules say nothing on this, so it's up to us to decide. What makes the most sense? What answer doesn't contradict the text?

Players decide what their characters think, say, or act, except where overridden by game mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

Players decide what their characters think, say, or act, except where overridden by game mechanics.

Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

You know exactly the reason, so this is a pretty snarky way of expressing it.

 

[clearstream]

What are you talking about? Social skills are not actions, they’re a source of bonuses on a subset of ability checks. Ability checks are not actions, they’re a step in the action resolution process. An action that is resolved by the general action resolution process can either succeed (if it has no chance of failure or no stakes), fail (if it has no chance of success), or be resolved with an ability check. An action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to think, feel, or do something succeeds if the player decides it does, or fails if the player decides it does. There is no opportunity for an ability check of any kind to be made, because based on the goal, the process for resolving it says it should succeed or fail. If a more specific process governs the resolution of the action, such as the spellcasting rules, then none of this is relevant to the resolution process of that action.

This is a new line of argument. You now say that the reason is because ability checks are not actions, right? Is rolling the dice ever an action, in your view?