D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

You’re not making any sense. My argument is that ability checks are part of the basic action resolution process. Why would I need to discount skills as game elements that can create exceptions to the general rules? I believe that they are game elements. Their function is to allow the DM to determine if a creature can add its proficiency bonus to an ability check. Nothing about that function is in contrast to the general rules for action resolution, so I don’t understand what relevance their ability to create exceptions to more general rules has.

This. @clearstream keeps posing the question as if there is an Intimidate action, comparable to the Shove or Hide actions. But there isn’t. Which is why I like shifting out example to “seduce”, to make it clear that we are talking about a general-purpose game resolution mechanic, applied when there is no specific mechanic. And within that, if it seems like a specific skill could apply to the task at hand, the DM may allow the proficiency bonus to be added.

Skills are not actions.

 

[HammerMan]

He doesn't have to have written the books, be a WotC employee or mind reader. He just has to be able to read what was written. Uncertainty with regard to ability checks is per RAW decided before the roll happens.

if that was true then why does this keep coming up and why are then a half dozen posters tellyou and him they read the exact same books and got a different answer?

I and the two other DMs in my group also don't need to roll to see how to describe orcs. It's really, really easy to just describe an orc as being as intimidating as we like, then if necessary roll the ability check to see if the intimidation was successful or not.

wait so you agree the roll may be needed? now I am REALLY confused

Because they don't show what you think they show.

they show the rules we read, how they were read and what lead us to the conclusion it did...

This is a Strawman of what @iserith just said. First, the DM can author responses without a skill, but yes, skills don't give the DM that ability. Second, the roleplaying rules are what give the player the ability to decide whether social skills affect his PC and to what degree, not a skill.

this is not a strawman...this is the damn argument.

Or just follow the rules and the DM describes the environment, including what the orcs are doing.

or follow the rules of the game and make an intimidate check

You are also not following RAW if you use ability checks for how well an orc intimidates someone. Ability checks are by RAW to determine success or failure of uncertain ability checks. There's not one word about using them to see how well someone does something.

that is correct, and I have explained my house rules plenty, if you don't understand you can ask, but my house rules have nothing to do with if skills work for NPCs

You don't get to speak for everyone. He hasn't convinced you, but you're a far cry from everyone.

okay go back, find a poster that agreeed with me, then read the thread and came away convinced by his argument. just 1 example... you can go back According to @GMforPowergamers they have had many arguments with @iserith so you have to be able to disprove me by finding one poster saying something like "Oh I get it now"

You've attempted to support yours with rules that don't say what you think they do, but that's not the same as giving your claims real support.

every rule quoted is a real rule, and they DO support my argument. You just don't like them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

They create an exception to PHB 185 such that they can do the things listed in them, without any carve outs (such as preventing uncertainty in their regard) that might otherwise be created by PHB 185. For example, when a creatures is trying to pry information from a prisoner, a DM can call for a check.

Wait wait wait….are you suggesting that skills are sufficiently specific to override the general if the action fits one of the examples given in the text, but not otherwise?

So the DM should consider the action, decide if a skill applies, then consult the text, and if it matches one of those examples the player loses the protection of the roleplaying rule, but otherwise they retain it?

 

[iserith]

if that was true then why does this keep coming up and why are then a half dozen posters tellyou and him they read the exact same books and got a different answer?

wait so you agree the roll may be needed? now I am REALLY confused

they show the rules we read, how they were read and what lead us to the conclusion it did...

this is not a strawman...this is the damn argument.

or follow the rules of the game and make an intimidate check

that is correct, and I have explained my house rules plenty, if you don't understand you can ask, but my house rules have nothing to do with if skills work for NPCs

okay go back, find a poster that agreeed with me, then read the thread and came away convinced by his argument. just 1 example... you can go back According to @GMforPowergamers they have had many arguments with @iserith so you have to be able to disprove me by finding one poster saying something like "Oh I get it now"

every rule quoted is a real rule, and they DO support my argument. You just don't like them.

If you think I'm trying to convince anyone in this thread of anything (which is total folly), you've missed what my goal is which I've stated to you previously.

 

[Bill Zebub]

great... you are so great you can always describe a range of orcs from 3-22

As has been pointed out to before in this thread, there is no 3-22 “degree of success” in D&D 5e. Certainly some (many?) people use low and high rolls as narration cues, but it’s not formally part of the game.

 

[iserith]

As has been pointed out to before in this thread, there is no 3-22 “degree of success” in D&D 5e. Certainly some (many?) people use low and high rolls as narration cues, but it’s not formally part of the game.

And to answer the question posed by that poster: Just about anyone can be "so great" as to just use words to describe the orc. I'm not special in this regard. The question is whether the rules support rolling for description. They don't. But they don't prevent rolling weighted dice to inform describing the environment either, just like I can roll weighted dice to determine the weather during the rainy season (where higher rolls mean inclement weather). Neither of those rolls are an ability check.

 

[HammerMan]

If you think I'm trying to convince anyone in this thread of anything (which is total folly), you've missed what my goal is which I've stated to you previously.

all you are doing is being insulting and smug at this point... what goal could you possibly have that has you state for sure that you have found the one true reading of the rule book and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and falls into house rules?

 

[FrozenNorth]

They still aren't actions though. The action is whatever the PC is doing e.g. attempting to hide during a battle which costs an action to attempt. The ability check resolves uncertainty e.g. Dexterity (Stealth) check versus enemies' passive Perception to resolve whether the PC becomes hidden or not. We should never conflate actions with ability checks, nor ability checks with actions.

Classic example of this: a Rogue attempts to Hide within a Darkness spell unaware that their opponent has Blindsight and is unhindered by magical darkness. Action is taken, but no skill is engaged.

 

[HammerMan]

As has been pointed out to before in this thread, there is no 3-22 “degree of success” in D&D 5e. Certainly some (many?) people use low and high rolls as narration cues, but it’s not formally part of the game.

that is correct, but if the DC is 15 and you have a +2 you need a 13+ on the die. That is the range. It is the expected amount of intimidation the orc is supposed to show... I have yet to hear how anyone that NEVER uses skill rolls decides how to rule impromptu how intimidating someone is without cha checks...

For the DM and player to agree that ALL attempts at any social skills must be out of game is fine (it is an interpretation of the rules). FOr the DM and player to agree SOME attempts at social skills will be handled by RP and others by Dice is fine (It is my interpretation, sometimes one sometimes the other). It is even fine this thread is full of people who when they DM say Some PC checks some PC RP, but all NPC will be RP is fine too (I still don't get it, but I understand how they may have read the rules that way)

 

[HammerMan]

Classic example of this: a Rogue attempts to Hide within a Darkness spell unaware that their opponent has Blindsight and is unhindered by magical darkness. Action is taken, but no skill is engaged.

oh man does that remind me of the time I had my invisible wizard walk around investigating the room while the rogue and fighter talked to the priest... and the DM had me make (back then) move silent checks, then revealed at the end the darn priest could see me the whole time... it was funny.

That is even a funny story we could not replicate today. We don't hide things from each other we don't make fake rolls, we don't pass notes. We are way more open now, and as much as it is an improvement over all...I do miss funny things like that sometimes.