D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

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.

That's because you don't. You have a valid (and very popular) playstyle, but it is unsupported by the text of D&D, 5th Edition, "The World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game"(tm). You just seem to be unable/unwilling to see that.

 

[iserith]

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

If the player said, at some point, that the character is keeping watch for danger (traps or monsters) or is searching for secret doors while traveling the adventure location, then passive Perception may be used by the DM to resolve tasks. There are circumstances where, if the PC is engaged in some other ongoing task, then passive Perception cannot be applied.

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

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but anyway I don't care how many people agree or disagree with me.

yes but also NPC/Monster actions see above

And if they are trying to influence a PC, there's no uncertainty and thus no ability check.

 

[iserith]

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

Oh, so you in fact ARE saying the DM can say how a PC thinks. They are intimidated, persuaded, or deceived. Good to know. This is a nonstarter for me, as you know, so if we can't get past this point, we're done with this conversation.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

diffrent DCs... just like I can roll hide and have a wis 10 untrained percever be DC 10 and a Wis 20 skill prof and expertis in perception DC 21 and 5 other numbers inbetween

You're still missing the point.

okay and that is?

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.

yes and no. Hiding in ambush to wait for someone to come by is an example, it may not matter when you hide, but the fact that you did could be important 20 minutes later.

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.

weird idea, but I agree

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.

yeah, back in 2e infravision had some fun ways to be used to see heat.

So, again, until you factor in the observer, "hiding" can't be successful.

right, may not ever matter, wont matter until someone comes by...

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.

yeah, like when I had a PC with a huge stealth check a few years ago say he was going to slide into the foot locker to hide and I told him no roll needed... he hide.

 

[HammerMan]

That's because you don't. You have a valid (and very popular) playstyle, but it is unsupported by the text of D&D, 5th Edition, "The World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game"(tm). You just seem to be unable/unwilling to see that.

except that is just it... you declairing it invalid doesn't make it invalid.

 

[HammerMan]

And if they are trying to influence a PC, there's no uncertainty and thus no ability check.

unless there IS uncertainty... so yeah I still have the valid reading.

 

[iserith]

unless there IS uncertainty... so yeah I still have the valid reading.

There can't be since the player decides if they are deceived, intimidated, or persuaded.

 

[HammerMan]

Oh, so you in fact ARE saying the DM can say how a PC thinks.

nope PC controls what they think in reaction to all environments described by DM and rules.

They are intimidated, persuaded, or deceived.

okay

Good to know.

not the smocking gun you think it is. Unlike you I don't treat the social skills as mind control so BOTH DM and Player can not control responses (they can make educated guess though)

This is a nonstarter for me,

only cause you can't read what I have typed over and over again...

funny thing, the fact that you pride yourself on have the correct reading of the rules, but can't read the fact that my way of reading the entire PHB doesn't take agency away from PCs amazes me... I think you need to reevaluate your comprehension of written words.

so if we can't get past this point, we're done with this conversation.

Okay, then if we are done just admit that there are multi valid interpretations and we can move on.

 

[HammerMan]

There can't be since the player decides if they are deceived, intimidated, or persuaded.

wait... you have just gone from "PC decide how to think and act" to "PCs can control the world as they want" now I disagree. They can no more choose to feel initmidated or not then feel cold or warm, just how there PC reacts to it.

Can PCs just say "No, I reject your____" with any skill? can they reject that an NPC/Monster rolled better on stealth then there perception? What about grapple and athletics?

 

[iserith]

nope PC controls what they think in reaction to all environments described by DM and rules.

okay

not the smocking gun you think it is. Unlike you I don't treat the social skills as mind control so BOTH DM and Player can not control responses (they can make educated guess though)

only cause you can't read what I have typed over and over again...

funny thing, the fact that you pride yourself on have the correct reading of the rules, but can't read the fact that my way of reading the entire PHB doesn't take agency away from PCs amazes me... I think you need to reevaluate your comprehension of written words.

Okay, then if we are done just admit that there are multi valid interpretations and we can move on.

Of course they aren't "mind control." But when you start rolling ability checks to determine whether a PC is deceived, persuaded, or intimidated, then you are saying what the PC thinks (which is not the DM's role per the rules). That you then say they can react however they want only serves to prove that all you're doing is going through a weird process that doesn't mean anything, except you're stepping on the player's role to determine what the PC thinks for no good reason. The only thing it does is inform your description and give you a reason to penalize your players' XP if you want (as you stated upthread).

Your interpretation, such as it is, looks very twisted to me and is very much not a valid reading of the rules in my view. This will be my final interaction with you in this thread.