D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

View attachment 147829

Yes, but there are rulings the guidance in the books support, and there are rulings the guidance in the book does not support.

Also, damn does Sigourney Weaver look like Tim Curry as Dr. Frank N. Furter in that screenshot!

 

[iserith]

You do realize that in arguing that it's not a form of mind control and the players can RP their response to the roll any way they like, you are arguing that the players have the right to declare with certainty the reaction to social skills? There's literally no point to a roll if the PC isn't forced to be intimidated or persuaded.

The point is to inform the description of the environment. It's just not what ability checks are made for per the rules. So really this is just a weighted roll for color/flavor, not an ability check.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, damn does Sigourney Weaver look like Tim Curry as Dr. Frank N. Furter in that screenshot!

You made me log out to view that image. I was like, "Ghostbusters?" Yep!

 

[HammerMan]

No. You are not carrying it out to the next logical step in the rules for ability check adjudication. When the DM sets a DC for an attempt to intimidate, they also set the success and failure stakes. That is when the DM decides how the NPC reacts. They act one way when there is a success on the ability check, and they act another way when there is a failure on the check.

and none of those need be what the PC wants as an end result.

A PC fighter comes across a lone orc guarding a pie.
"I intimidate the orc" the player says, but adds some flavor to suit your game in how he will... and then tell you he wants the orc to runaway scared
The DM already knows the orc will most likely not run, but sets a DC to see if he successes in intimidating him... if succeeds the orc punches him, if fail orc laughs at him

The PC declarer intent.
the DM determined that the effect was out of line but other effect would trigger off success/fail
DC set
roll made
outcome resolved...

now by my house rules if the PC missed by 2-3pts he would "ha, good try, no" if he missed it by more then that but less then 10 he would laugh a belly laugh. if he rolled more then ten laugh he would laugh hard at him...
if he made it by 5ish I would just have orc punch character in face if he made it by more then five i would have him attack with disadvantage, and I would RP him being freaked out.

as you see my house rule is separate from the main rule


Now the DM at any point could just say "no" or "Ok" for auto sucess/fail thats fine... the roll is if the DM doesn't know.

now reverse it. the orc wants to intimidate the PC into running instead

The DM declarer intent.
the PC determined that the effect was out of line but other effect would trigger off success/fail
DC set
roll made
outcome resolved...

now my house rule part is it doesn't have to be this rigid, the Player (or DM) doesn't need to decide before roll what all the out comes are, they can make them up as they roll before they roll or after they roll.

 

[HammerMan]

You do realize that in arguing that it's not a form of mind control and the players can RP their response to the roll any way they like, you are arguing that the players have the right to declare with certainty the reaction to social skills? There's literally no point to a roll if the PC isn't forced to be intimidated or persuaded.

I disagree, I don't even know how to keep explaining it diffrent ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

You made me log out to view that image. I was like, "Ghostbusters?" Yep!

Also, come on, “there are no rulings, only rules” would have been inaccurate to 5e, but at least it would have rhymed properly with the original line!

EDIT: And it would totally have worked as a caricature of the stance I’ve been taking in this thread! Aw man, what a missed opportunity!

 

[Aldarc]

Also, come on, “there are no rulings, only rules” would have been inaccurate to 5e, but at least it would have rhymed properly with the original line!

The inaccuracy is a myth perpetuated by WotC. So they really care about the proper rules so long as you buy the game?

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree, I don't even know how to keep explaining it diffrent ways.

What is the difference between the following?

DM: "The orc comes at you frothing at the mouth and waving his axe wildly in an intimidating fashion."
Player: "My PC is a barbarian from the Gozark tribe and my tribe eats even the most intimidating of orcs for breakfast and we then pick our teeth with their bones. He doesn't intimidate me. I rush up and remove his head with MY axe."

And...

DM: "The orc comes at you frothing at the mouth and waving his axe wildly in an intimidating fashion. He rolls a 22 for intimidation!"
Player: "My PC is a barbarian from the Gozark tribe and my tribe eats even the most intimidating of orcs for breakfast and we then pick our teeth with their bones. He doesn't intimidate me. I rush up and remove his head with MY axe."

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree, I don't even know how to keep explaining it diffrent ways.

Seventy-seven times.

 

[HammerMan]

What is the difference between the following?

DM: "The orc comes at you frothing at the mouth and waving his axe wildly in an intimidating fashion."
Player: "My PC is a barbarian from the Gozark tribe and my tribe eats even the most intimidating of orcs for breakfast and we then pick our teeth with their bones. He doesn't intimidate me. I rush up and remove his head with MY axe."

And...

DM: "The orc comes at you frothing at the mouth and waving his axe wildly in an intimidating fashion. He rolls a 22 for intimidation!"
Player: "My PC is a barbarian from the Gozark tribe and my tribe eats even the most intimidating of orcs for breakfast and we then pick our teeth with their bones. He doesn't intimidate me. I rush up and remove his head with MY axe."

nothing...

technically I mean if you know your PCs eat with the most intimating of orcs, and you know that this one is Frothing at the mouth I asume you have some back story plan here, and I don't see why you rolled...