D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Generally, passive Insight is going to be what is used when it comes to noticing whether the NPC's body language or mannerisms suggests something about their agenda, intentions, or truthfulness, if it's appropriate to use a passive check at all. But again, a passive check is just a special type of ability check. And for there to be an ability check, the player must have declared an action for which there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. When it comes to influencing a PC, there's no uncertainty as to the outcome, so no check, passive or otherwise, is appropriate.

wait you need to declair an action to use your passive score?!? where are you getting that from passive is the opposite of active.

I think where some get twisted up on this is that they feel the need to roll dice when an action a monster takes smells faintly like it aligns with a "skill check." The monster lies to the PC, so they must make a Charisma (Deception) check. The DM here is failing to consider the rest of the adjudication process which, if they did, would tell them they can't proceed with that check because of the lack of uncertainty as to the outcome.

unless there is uncertainty... no one (that I have seen) is argueing to roll every sentence, every step, even every climb... (and since I house ruled to make MORE things automatic not less god knows I haven't)

What should happen therefore instead is the DM simply presents the lie to the PC and it's now up to the player to take action to determine whether that's the truth or not (or, alternatively, is persuaded by the NPC or intimidated).

OKay and if the PC and DM are UNCERTAIN becuse there is not a guide line and the acting/story telling ability of the DM/Player isn't in quastion but the character's skill?

 

[HammerMan]

If it's an ability check, what's the DC the DM sets for an orc intimidating a PC?

consult the PHB on DCs (Here I even bolded where it says monsters I read that as any NPC myself)
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate Talent and Training in an effort to overcome a Challenge. The GM 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.

For every ability check, the GM decides which of The Six Abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most Common DCs.

Typical Difficulty Classes

Task Difficulty	DC
Very easy	5
Easy	10
Medium	15
Hard	20
Very hard	25
Nearly impossible	30

 

[iserith]

wait you need to declair an action to use your passive score?!? where are you getting that from passive is the opposite of active.

The rules. "Passive" just refers to there being no die rolls. The check itself is used to resolve a task done repeatedly or can be used if the DM wants to determine something secretly. The character is still very much doing stuff.

unless there is uncertainty... no one (that I have seen) is argueing to roll every sentence, every step, even every climb... (and since I house ruled to make MORE things automatic not less god knows I haven't)

And I'm not arguing that people are arguing to "roll every sentence, every step, even every climb." What happens often with many DMs, however, is that if something has the whiff of being worded similar to a "skill check," they call for a roll. If lie, the Deception check. If bully, then Intimidation check. They don't consider whether there's uncertainty or a meaningful consequence for failure or what the roll is otherwise actually resolving, which are the prerequisites for calling for an ability check in the first place. If consideration was given, then we wouldn't see people rolling to see if the orc can intimidate the PC.

OKay and if the PC and DM are UNCERTAIN becuse there is not a guide line and the acting/story telling ability of the DM/Player isn't in quastion but the character's skill?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what they do. The DM narrates the results, sometimes calling for an ability check to resolve the player's declared action.

 

[HammerMan]

One error that I think continues to be made, which can lead to different interpretations, is to treat the dice roll, and the success condition, as having something to do with the quality of the effort. (And this is related to the debate about the language used to declare an action.)

yes if you do a good job you succseed and if you do a bad job you fail...
now in the real world sometimes you do everything right and fail anyway...but I think that falls under auto fail in the game

Example: when I say that I'm going to attempt to hide, what it really means is that I'm trying to hide from somebody (even if I don't know who that somebody is yet). It's the tree falling in the woods thing: if there's nobody around to notice me, there's no meaning to 'hidden'. (We can dive into that claim if you disagree, but I won't bother unless somebody tries to contest it.)

I think we all agree a rogue or ranger alone in the woods and 'hides' doesn't need to roll

Whether I succeed or fail at hiding isn't just about my character, it's about my character in relation to other characters (NPC and PC) who might see me.

yup with you so far

Translating that to the current context, if an NPC is lying/persuading/seducing/etc., "success" isn't just that they did it very well, but that it worked on the target. A lot of the posts seem to suggest that if, say, the DM wants the merchant to "roll Persuasion" (sic) and rolls high, the merchant was persuasive in an objective sense. But, using goal and approach, the actual goal was to persuade the PC.

okay and the PC gets to decide what that means and how they react... again it seems a strange time to roll, but if by corner case you need to, okay the rules support you.

The reason I think this is confusing is that some action declarations, "I climb to the top of the wall", "I try to recall who this god is", "I look for tracks of the bear", there is no other character/creature involved. Let's call those "intransitive" action declarations.

yup, I don't even think of the mental stuff as an action at all but good so far.

In "transitive" action declarations, success is absolutely dependent upon the target. There is no independent/objective successful "hide" or "shove"....or "persuade", "intimidate", etc.

okay

I'm not sure that will make anybody switch sides in this debate, but there have been a number of posts with example scenarios in which I feel like this distinction was not understood.

I have no more or less conviction of my reading now then when I started... so I think we all agree on this. (My house rule of degrees aside)

 

[iserith]

consult the PHB on DCs (Here I even bolded where it says monsters I read that as any NPC myself)
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate Talent and Training in an effort to overcome a Challenge. The GM 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.

For every ability check, the GM decides which of The Six Abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most Common DCs.

Typical Difficulty Classes

Task Difficulty	DC
Very easy	5
Easy	10
Medium	15
Hard	20
Very hard	25
Nearly impossible	30

So if the DM rolls a Charisma (Intimidation) check for the orc, setting the DC at 20, and the result is a 22, the PC is intimidated?

 

[HammerMan]

I haven't been reading your exchanges with other posters very closely if at all.

I think the example you provide here seems very tortured, pun intended. I believe exhaustion is the better mechanic to apply to torture situations which would impart (at level 1 exhaustion) disadvantage to ability checks. The player attempts the deception with the exhausted character. The DM, for whatever reason, thinks this action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, at which point they call for a Charisma (Deception) check at disadvantage against a DC (perhaps NPC's passive Insight or a contest or just a set DC). On a success, the NPC believes them. On a failure, the NPC doesn't and things get worse e.g. additional torture is applied, stacking more levels of exhaustion.

I have to agree exhaustion is a great use there.

 

[HammerMan]

I think one thing going on here is that people are interpreting your arguments (and @iserith's, and maybe mine) to mean they are playing wrong, and that we think they should be playing differently*, not recognizing that this is really just about the thrill of the debate and a general love of precision.

*Well, maybe we do think they should be playing differently, but with "should" used in the sense of "You should really try hot yoga; it changed my life!"

my thing is at the end (or beginning) of a 'friendly debate' we would shake hands and come to some agreement (maybe one changed mind or not) on here @iserith refuses to even concede we have a valid reading he disagrees with.

 

[HammerMan]

The rules. "Passive" just refers to there being no die rolls. The check itself is used to resolve a task done repeatedly or can be used if the DM wants to determine something secretly. The character is still very much doing stuff.

so by walking into a room you mean that activates the passive perception?

And I'm not arguing that people are arguing to "roll every sentence, every step, even every climb." What happens often with many DMs, however, is that if something has the whiff of being worded similar to a "skill check," they call for a roll. If lie, the Deception check. If bully, then Intimidation check. They don't consider whether there's uncertainty or a meaningful consequence for failure or what the roll is otherwise actually resolving, which are the prerequisites for calling for an ability check in the first place. If consideration was given, then we wouldn't see people rolling to see if the orc can intimidate the PC.

except people who agree with you every step disagree with what you came away with.... and can roll intimidate

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. The DM describes the environment.

yup

The player describes what they do.

yup

The DM narrates the results, sometimes calling for an ability check to resolve the player's declared action.

yes but also NPC/Monster actions see above

 

[Bill Zebub]

yes if you do a good job you succseed and if you do a bad job you fail...

Then how come when somebody lies, some people believe the lie and some people don't? There is no objective "good job lying"; it depends on who is listening.

now in the real world sometimes you do everything right and fail anyway...but I think that falls under auto fail in the game

You're still missing the point.

I think we all agree a rogue or ranger alone in the woods and 'hides' doesn't need to roll

No, what I'm saying here is that if there's nobody to hide from you can't succeed at hiding, because the term is meaningless without an observer. You can try to make yourself hidden, but without knowing the details of an observer it's impossible to determine success.

Imagine you find the PERFECT hiding spot, and you roll a 35 with all your bonuses. If the observer is an ant that crawls up your leg, you aren't hidden. If the observer can see in other parts of the EM spectrum, you aren't hidden. If the observer has X-Ray vision, you aren't hidden.

So, again, until you factor in the observer, "hiding" can't be successful. Thus the declared action is transitive, meaning it needs a target, and "success" means that target is unable to find you, not just that you did a good job hiding.

 

[HammerMan]

So if the DM rolls a Charisma (Intimidation) check for the orc, setting the DC at 20, and the result is a 22, the PC is intimidated?

if that meets or beats the DC by the rules yes. NOW the PC is incontrol of how they REACT to that.