D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Yes, but as that text is part of the rules for using ability scores, it must be taken in context with the rest of the rules for ability scores.

It needn't be taken in any such way. All it need be is a game element. Or, once again, are you saying skills are not a game element?

You keep running up to the diving board, but not jumping in...

Because the text explicitly defines skills as “a specific aspect of an ability score,” and skill proficiency as representing a character being “particularly good at” a specific subset of ability checks with that score. Unless we are ignoring parts of the RAW that don’t support your point, we must understand skills as a specific aspect of ability checks.

Look at the RAW. Do you see a blank in your PHB where the skills text is? If not, why are you unable to concede that skills are a game element?

What do you believe the PHB 7 RAW says? The actual words? What is it calling for?

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “game element,” yes, I do believe The Stealth skill is a game element. Specifically, it’s a proficiency which applies to a subset of Dexterity checks, as defined under the Stealth subheading in the Using Ability Scores section of the rules.

So we're good then, right? I guess not. You need to make the jump. Just decide: are skills game elements or not. PHB 7 imposes no further conditions.

Yes. Would you not, as a DM, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when a monster tries to “attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard,” and that action could fail and has an uncertain outcome? I certainly would.

Yes. Even though stealth is addressed to players just as deception is. I as DM would make the check for an NPC. Even against a PC.

Likewise, I would make a Charisma (Intimidation) check when a monster “attempt(s) to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence,” and that action could fail and has an uncertain outcome.

Agreed. I would do that.

Of course, if the someone the monster is trying to influence in this way happens to be a PC, the outcome would not be uncertain, so I would not call for a check.

This is where for virtuous reasons, we might prefer a carve out. RAW doesn't support us in having it.

 

[Lanefan]

However they want to.

Sure, if the player decides the DM should make an ability check to determine if the action succeeds at making them think, feel, or do the thing, that’s their prerogative.

Thing is, I'd bet a vast majority of players don't even realize they have the option of doing this, which makes it somewhat moot.

 

[clearstream]

I mean, hellz, the most specific thing in those examples is the word "you", in text directed at players. So if you want to extract unintended meaning, NPCs can't even use them.

Do you believe an NPC cannot make stealth checks to sneak up on PCs? I urge you to read the stealth text prior to answering.

 

[Bill Zebub]

do you know how paranoid I would have gotten back in 2e or 3e if a DM asked for a dex check to walk across a room...

such a funny idea could have been an entire 3 hour ordeal out of game as players carefully described step by step what they did...

I once (back in AD&D times) had the party come across a log, about 18" in diameter, at waist height across the passage they were in.

I wish I had been tracking time like @iserith and @Charlaquin do because they spent sooooo much time at that log, convinced it was a trap.

It was just a log, suspended across the passage for unknown reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

can't the reverse be said...

It can be argued that a rule that very specifically gives about ability checks is more specific than the general rule a player the right to determine how his character thinks and feels, so even if we accept that argument, it still loses

Ability checks encompass all skills plus any non-skill ability check, including initiative. That's extraordinarily general. A rule which specifically only affects a single player and his PC is much more specific.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do you believe an NPC cannot make stealth checks to sneak up on PCs? I urge you to read the stealth text prior to answering.

Oh FFS please read the very next sentence I wrote, that you deleted from your response. Between this and your refusal to address my question about the auto success/fail determination, this doesn't even feel like honest engagement at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

do you know how paranoid I would have gotten back in 2e or 3e if a DM asked for a dex check to walk across a room...

such a funny idea could have been an entire 3 hour ordeal out of game as players carefully described step by step what they did...

While I have that same humorous image now, that's not what the "normally" entails I don't think. I think it's more along the lines of "Normally you don't have to make a check to walk across a room, but if your PC is falling down drunk he might be asked to make a dex check."

 

[HammerMan]

I once (back in AD&D times) had the party come across a log, about 18" in diameter, at waist height across the passage they were in.

I wish I had been tracking time like @iserith and @Charlaquin do because they spent sooooo much time at that log, convinced it was a trap.

It was just a log, suspended across the passage for unknown reasons.

I was supposed to come in (new character new game new table new group)one night as soon as other players (I only met 1 of them before and the DM) they already killed all the monsters and just were looting... I showed up a bit late to give them time... not enough.

the door out was locked. Not magically locked not trapped, just locked (and even I who wasn't there realized they had the key) and it took almost 3 hours of "I'm not touching it, we didn't lock it after we came in." like 15 minutes into this 3 hours I blurted out "Doesn't this basement door lock behind you automatically that is why it is propped open?" the DM looked at me with the most pained look and said "Yeah. basement auto locks behind you" but that didn't clue anyone in.

I thought this might be a joke. Back then we didn't have cell phones to play on, but I had a book on me. However after I tried to play with this group through this and another campaign...no, not a joke just how they rolled...

 

[Charlaquin]

It needn't be taken in any such way. All it need be is a game element.

How do you square that with this passage?

A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. (…) Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.

Or, once again, are you saying skills are not a game element?

No. They are a game element which grants proficiency in a subset of ability checks. I have told you this many, many times now.

You keep running up to the diving board, but not jumping in...


Look at the RAW. Do you see a blank in your PHB where the skills text is? If not, why are you unable to concede that skills are a game element?

They are a game element. Their game function does not in any way conflict with the rules for determining if an ability check needs to be made. All they do is determine if a proficiency bonus can be added to an ability check that’s being made.

What do you believe the PHB 7 RAW says? The actual words? What is it calling for?

Sorry, I’m using D&D Beyond to reference the rules right now, which doesn’t have page numbers. Is that the specific beats general rule?

So we're good then, right? I guess not. You need to make the jump. Just decide: are skills game elements or not. PHB 7 imposes no further conditions.

They are game elements. I keep telling you that.

Yes. Even though stealth is addressed to players just as deception is. I as DM would make the check for an NPC. Even against a PC.


Agreed. I would do that.


This is where for virtuous reasons, we might prefer a carve out. RAW doesn't support us in having it.

Then what do you call this, if not RAW support for a check not being called for when the outcome is certain?

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

 

[clearstream]

Oh FFS please read the very next sentence I wrote, that you deleted from your response. Between this and your refusal to address my question about the auto success/fail determination, this doesn't even feel like honest engagement at this point.

Multiple posters are addressing me. I can't really answer the same question multiple times (well evidently I can, as I do, but hopefully you will understand the fatigue.) If I missed something, apologies: I was guiding you to reconsider your view of "you" and the like, in 5th ed rules text.