D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

I was thinking about this distinction (between supported and allowed) and I feel it is a worthwhile one. It gets at the notion that a DM decision can be well or less-well justified. One problem is that it is often better justified for a DM to make decisions within RAI, than RAW. We don't need to concern ourselves with that as you have made the commitment that the yardstick is RAW, and I too have made clear I am speaking of RAW.

Thus I appreciate your move to conflate rules with guidance - seeing as that neatly includes the case that PHB 185 is guidance - but guidance isn't RAW. So as we are talking about what RAW supports or allows, we can't be including guidance.

The rule books contain “rules and guidance,” right? For the purpose of determining what the rules do and don’t support, I don’t think it’s useful to distinguish between the two. Both provide support to the DM in making rulings.

And that mirrors attempts to do things that can be resolved by CHA (Deception). Similarly to DEX (Stealth), it is supported by RAW for a DM to choose to make an ability check using CHA (Deception) for an NPC against PC passive WIS (Insight).

If the outcome of the action is uncertain, yes.

It's up to the DM to decide if players are aware of that check (as discussed in the DMG relating to rolls behind the screen etc.) This case however damages the claim that PHB 185 creates prior-certainty.

How so?

 

[clearstream]

The rule books contain “rules and guidance,” right? For the purpose of determining what the rules do and don’t support, I don’t think it’s useful to distinguish between the two. Both provide support to the DM in making rulings.

Guidance produces RAI. Rules form RAW. If your contention is about what RAI supports, we're likely to easily find agreement.

How so?

I'll respond to this tomorrow, in a separate post.

 

[Charlaquin]

Guidance produces RAI. Rules form RAW. If your contention is about what RAI supports, we're likely to easily find agreement.

If guidance is written in the rulebook, arguing that it isn’t part of the rules as written seems pretty asinine to me.

I'll respond to this tomorrow, in a separate post.

Cool. Please quote or tag me in it so I see a notification

 

[Bill Zebub]

Easy: the player is trying to hide the PC's actual abilities - and for some inexplicable reason forgot to mention this to the DM ahead of time. The player wants to fail the climb check, or at least have it appear much more difficult for the C than it really is, to help prove "No, I'm not a Rogue. Never!"

I've seen this done fairly often, and done it myself, where a PC comes in to the party as one class but hides a second (or hides their actual class) until such time as the other PCs figure it out or the class gets forced into the open by in-game events. I had a Druid-Thief PC of mine come into a party once posing as a Ranger and managed to pull it off - he ran with them for one adventure and then retired with none the wiser...

If the player of the rogue is trying to hide the fact, and fails to keep the DM informed when announcing their action declaration…well, sounds to me like the character forgot, too.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Guidance produces RAI. Rules form RAW.

That is a completely made-up distinction.

RAW is what's written. RAI is what they meant, but didn't communicate clearly.

 

[clearstream]

If guidance is written in the rulebook, arguing that it isn’t part of the rules as written seems pretty asinine to me.

It's foolish to believe guidance is RAW: it produces conflicts all through. Particularly from the DMG. But let's look at just one from the PHB.

As you make your monk character, think about your connection to the monastery where you learned your skills and spent your formative years.

According to you, this piece of guidance is a rule. Per RAW, every player creating a monk must think about their connection to their monastery. Which is delightfully ironic because that would stand in direct contradiction to another piece of guidance, which is that the player decides what their character thinks.

That is a completely made-up distinction.

Let's see...

Creating a wizard character demands a backstory dominated by at least one extraordinary event.

This is a rule according to you, right. You say that

RAW is what's written. RAI is what they meant, but didn't communicate clearly.

So every wizard player must create a backstory dominated by at least one extraordinary event. And

Put some thought into your name even if you’re just picking one from a list.

DM What is your character's name.
P1 It's Hrukk the Barb...
DM Whoaaa!! Stop right there. You have to put some thought in. You can't just come right back at me with a name.

Or

People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority.

DM So you're quickly learning that the people of this town are ashamed about the filth and crowding; they see that they are denying their own...
P1 Wait on there (flicks through some pages). Yeah, right. No. People in towns must take pride! No shame for them.
DM ...

Or we can imagine a similar exchange, say with a druid or ranger PC born in a town, but who felt ashamed of denying their nature. Which of course will conflict with other text.

RAW is - "Rules As Written". The clue is in the acronym. It's rules (not anything else) as they are written.

In this regard, you two have gone a bit Upton Park. Let me know when we're able to continue our journey on a sane basis.

 

[Maxperson]

It's foolish to believe guidance is RAW: it produces conflicts all through. Particularly from the DMG. But let's look at just one from the PHB.


According to you, this piece of guidance is a rule. Per RAW, every player creating a monk must think about their connection to their monastery. Which is delightfully ironic because that would stand in direct contradiction to another piece of guidance, which is that the player decides what their character thinks.

Sooooo, there's no contradiction there. The guidance in monk instructs the PLAYER to think about the monastery and the formative years. That's it. Just consider it. Nothing has to be done, though. And again, the player has to think about it, which is very different from telling the player what the PC has to think.

Let's see...


This is a rule according to you, right. You say that


So every wizard player must create a backstory dominated by at least one extraordinary event. And

Learning magic is an extraordinary event, so there is at least one in the background of every wizard.

DM What is your character's name.
P1 It's Hrukk the Barb...
DM Whoaaa!! Stop right there. You have to put some thought in. You can't just come right back at me with a name.

Coming up with any name takes some thought. You can't do it without thinking, so some thought was indeed put into it.

DM So you're quickly learning that the people of this town are ashamed a the filth and crowding, they see that they are denying their own...
P1 Wait on there (flicks through some pages). Yeah, right. No. People in towns must take pride! No shame for them.
DM ...

It's a good thing the DM can change things, then.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's foolish to believe guidance is RAW: it produces conflicts all through. Particularly from the DMG. But let's look at just one from the PHB.


According to you, this piece of guidance is a rule. Per RAW, every player creating a monk must think about their connection to their monastery. Which is delightfully ironic because that would stand in direct contradiction to another piece of guidance, which is that the player decides what their character thinks.


Let's see...


This is a rule according to you, right. You say that

Ok, let’s remember that what we’re talking about here is what the rules support. So, what you’ve demonstrated here is that the rules support the player in thinking about their character’s backstory. As well they should.

 

[clearstream]

Ok, let’s remember that what we’re talking about here is what the rules support. So, what you’ve demonstrated here is that the rules support the player in thinking about their character’s backstory. As well they should.

I'm not going to engage with this line of argument. It's thoroughly specious.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is that you can't set a DC with the support of the rules because there is no DC that can be set to determine if the PC is influenced by the monster or not. Because there's no uncertainty - the player decides. What you're doing isn't an ability check. It's just throwing dice for description. "I rolled a 22 for the orc - so it looks X" as opposed to looking Y because the result was a 3 instead. Either way - as you've agreed - the player does what they want to do. Not an ability check.

Ignoring RAW for just a moment, it occurs to me that the PC's passive perception score here might serve as a DC for anything involving deception, lying, persuasion, disguise, and the like.

Doesn't work nearly so elegantly for intimidate, though.