D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

You know this thread (and others like them, not just on this topic) would be WAY more helpful to others if we could discus the pro/con of each style without pretending that 1 way is the only way to read the rules.

It would be more fun too. My favorite interactions in this thread have people asking "Why do you do this" or "How do you do that" and my least favorite is posters pretending they know the only true reading of the PHB

We certainly can discuss the pro's and con's of each approach regardless of the rules, but there's only one thing the rules say. So if you want to have the pro's and con's discussion, nobody's stopping you.

 

[clearstream]

So look.

"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."

Means that the chance for failure has to be determined BEFORE you roll, not after or during. It's literally impossible to use it the way you do by RAW.

How do we know the outcome is uncertain? Because the DM deems it so. That's the only test.

What would we hope to cash out of adding this needless piece of inflexibility to the game?

 

[HammerMan]

no my house rule has to do with the DC, and sometimes when appropriate that if you beat the DC by alot or a little matters (and if you fail by a little or alot.
The basic use of the skill system is not the use of the skills

So look.

"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."

Means that the chance for failure has to be determined BEFORE you roll, not after or during. It's literally impossible to use it the way you do by RAW.

again, I separated house rule from RAW very clearly for you.

• my house rule has to do with the DC, and sometimes when appropriate that if you beat the DC by alot or a little matters (and if you fail by a little or alot.
• The basic use of the skill system is not the use of the skills
• When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results
• Neither I nor my players know if this orc is intimidating it wasn't a planed plot point, neither I nor my DM knows if this lier can slide one by us just becuse the DM can't... ergo the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results

 

[HammerMan]

My "style" then is to do what the rules say. I don't have a preference otherwise that I carry from game to game, not counting preferences that exist outside the context of the game.

and yet, you can not even attempt to look at why we read the rules differently

 

[clearstream]

Yes. And this is where I get that all NPC actions are part of step one of the play loop. Much of the time, they are just descriptions that the players can than have their PCs react to (step two). Some of the time (especially combat), these descriptions lead to dice rolls which come to fruition in step three. Sorry. Still thinking about that tangent from earlier in the thread.

Tell me how you run the scenario where an NPC wants to sneak up on PCs?

Ask yourself if a DEX (Stealth) check against PC passive WIS (Perception) could in some cases play a part.

 

[iserith]

and yet, you can not even attempt to look at why we read the rules differently

I see that you read the rules differently. I judge that it is not correct. Why is that a problem for you? It's not a personal matter.

 

[Maxperson]

How do we know the outcome is uncertain? Because the DM deems it so. That's the only test.

The player can also deem certain things to be certain, per page 185.

Let me ask you this. During game play the part met a troll named Trool. 2 months of game time, and 1 month of real time later, the player says, "Remember when we met Trool the Troll? He was a cool dude." Would you think it's okay for the DM to stop that player and declare that memory uncertain, and then require the PC to roll an intelligence check to remember?

 

[HammerMan]

We certainly can discuss the pro's and con's of each approach regardless of the rules, but there's only one thing the rules say. So if you want to have the pro's and con's discussion, nobody's stopping you.

except I have read the rules (as have others here) and found they DO infact say that when we don't know the outcome, we use the dice, and we (player and dm) have agreed there is no certainty with every social interaction (I mean of course some are, just like a +9 thieves tool check is gonna make a min 10 so doesn't need to roll unless you house rule the 1 fail rule, and no you can't jump to the moon, and not you can't do a push up for insight)

 

[HammerMan]

I see that you read the rules differently. I judge that it is not correct. Why is that a problem for you? It's not a personal matter.

because we have shown you our interpretation and you are pretending it is invalid.

 

[HammerMan]

Let me ask you this. During game play the part met a troll named Trool. 2 months of game time, and 1 month of real time later, the player says, "Remember when we met Trool the Troll? He was a cool dude." Would you think it's okay for the DM to stop that player and declare that memory uncertain, and then require the PC to roll an intelligence check to remember?

and related if the same situation played out with "Remember that time we meet that cool troll, I can't remember his name cause it was 1 1/2 busy crazy months out of game(holidays) but only a few hours ago in game (was doing door to door dungeon crawl) can I get an Int check to remember it?"