D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

As I argued upthread, if you think DM should decide whether their own NPCs, acting on PCs, should succeed automatically, then we may as well stop arguing because we're never going to agree

I don't think I said automatically anywhere. Did you find somewhere I might have?

And if you argue that you skip that step when it's an NPC acting on a PC, then we're not using the prescribed play loop, so I don't know where you're getting that new rule from.

Remember that this is the general rule (PHB 185) that is conflicting with the specific (example, PHB 179), that the DM can call for a check. Per PHB 7, game element specifics beat general.

And if you argue that you skip that step when it's an NPC acting on a PC, then we're not using the prescribed play loop, so I don't know where you're getting that new rule from.

The play loop is another general rule.

So that means the player must decide whether the NPCs attempt (to persuade, intimidate, belittle, seduce) will automatically succeed or fail (in it's goal of altering their PC's behavior). And as long as we agree on that, I guess I don't really care if it's the DM who "calls for a roll" in the case of uncertainty. The player had their chance to declare the attempt was not going to work, so if they want to turn it over to the DM that's fine.

Again, that is only so if you ignore specific beats general. RAW doesn't support doing so.

 

[HammerMan]

And, like @HammerMan previously, in those enumerated steps he omitted the "determine whether it succeeds or fails automatically" step. Which is critical to his logic.

and doesn't matter at all to this argument as to if the dice roll can be used by the book.

is it an auto success or fail: if yes no die roll needed.
Since we are talking about die rolls the above can not change it.

 

[clearstream]

4 is incorrect. I’ve given my analysis of the game function of skills above, and yes it does contain lots of text, most of which is quoted directly from the rules. If you believe my analysis to be flawed in some way, feel free to point out how, but this response is simply ignoring my analysis and reiterating your opinion as fact.

Well, now you are departing RAW.

You're not bad at reiterating your position as fact, yourself. We might count ourselves flattered to be compared so favourably!

 

[Charlaquin]

And, like @HammerMan previously, in those enumerated steps he omitted the "determine whether it succeeds or fails automatically" step. Which is critical to his logic.

Nah, his would logic follow fine without that, if skills were a separate mechanic from ability checks, constituting a specific exception to the rules for ability checks. But, as my (yes, somewhat lengthy) analysis demonstrates, they are not, so the logic chain breaks down at step 4.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, now you are departing RAW.

If you think I’m departing RAW, can you please point out where in my quite thorough analysis of the relevant RAW I do so?

 

[Maxperson]

I want a carousel with iconic D&D monsters.

I get the Beholder.

I've seen some that had Hippocampus(the D&D kind). I think an Ankheg, Displacer Beast or Behir would be a lot of fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think I said automatically anywhere. Did you find somewhere I might have?

No. Again, I was just trying to cover all branches in the decision tree. I don't think you would say that (but if you did, we could stop the discussion.)

Remember that this is the general rule (PHB 185) that is conflicting with the specific (example, PHB 179), that the DM can call for a check. Per PHB 7, game element specifics beat general.


The play loop is another general rule.

I don't think you are understanding my point. I'm not saying anything about calling for a check here, I'm saying that the general rule is that there is 1) first a determination whether or not an action automatically succeeds or fails, and then 2) a check may be called for.

Where is the specific rule that says step 1 is skipped just because an NPC is acting on a PC? That is part of the play loop, and you're ignoring it.

Again, that is only so if you ignore specific beats general. RAW doesn't support doing so.

Again, what specific rule beats the general rule that an auto success/fail determination precedes a call for a roll?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Nah, his would logic follow fine without that, if skills were a separate mechanic from ability checks, constituting a specific exception to the rules for ability checks. But, as my (yes, somewhat lengthy) analysis demonstrates, they are not, so the logic chain breaks down at step 4.

Oh, wait, is that what he's arguing? That "using skills" is not the same as the play loop, and are used independently of ability checks?

Well, that's definitely a new one then. I can't wait to see the page reference.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've seen some that had Hippocampus(the D&D kind). I think an Ankheg, Displacer Beast or Behir would be a lot of fun.

What ever happened to good old fashioned unicorns?

 

[Maxperson]

Remember that this is the general rule (PHB 185) that is conflicting with the specific (example, PHB 179), that the DM can call for a check. Per PHB 7, game element specifics beat general.

This still is not true. You keep creating a conflict where none inherently exists. For such a conflict to be inherent in the rules, page 179 needs to say that the DM is the only one who can decide the outcome. The fact that it says, "might" call for a check, means that there is no inherent conflict, since page 185 works perfect fine as a reason why the DM "might" not call for the check. No inherent conflict in those rules means that Specific Beats General never enters play.