D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

wait... you mean like the pick locks 2e rule?

Is that the rule in 2e? I don’t know, I haven’t played it. Probably though, I’ve seen lock picking ruled that way quite a lot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to reiterate that whereas the overwhelming majority of your arguments are cogent, reasonable, ingenious, often surprising, and provocative (in a positive way) - notwithstanding that I don't agree with all of them - this argument is unhinged. I really can't engage with it.

I don’t know why you feel that way. Rules provide support. Guidance provides support. Both are contained within the text. Seems incredibly straightforward to me that when assessing what the text does or doesn’t support, both would be taken into consideration.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes. In the DMG again - "A non-player character is any character controlled by the Dungeon Master."

Is that a rule or guidance?

But, for serious, do you have other examples? Specifically when it comes to a DM running ability checks for NPCs? Please quote only from the DMG as the Player’s Handbook is not the Non-Player’s Handbook. Says so right on the cover.

 

[HammerMan]

Is that the rule in 2e? I don’t know, I haven’t played it. Probably though, I’ve seen lock picking ruled that way quite a lot.

yeah 2e had only thieves had 'skills' and one was X% open locks... if you rolled under that on a d100 it opened, if it was over the number the lock was 'beyond you' and you could not roll again until you upped the skill (so level up) or in some way you improved the circumstances... I hated it in 2e when it WAS the rule... in 3e I think there might have been something suggested but not sure... 4e and 5e have no such rule, and I would consider it a major red flag if a DM house ruled it.

 

[Lanefan]

Is that the rule in 2e? I don’t know, I haven’t played it. Probably though, I’ve seen lock picking ruled that way quite a lot.

It's the rule in 1e for many skills and-or abilities - you get one roll, which reflects your best attempt. I think that rule carried over to 2e.

 

[iserith]

Which is fine until one realizes there's a whole lot o' players out there (IME the majority of 'em) who can and will abuse this at every opportunity.

All too often, good-faith play has to be legislated somehow.

I don't see how this can be abused. The orc tries to intimidate them. The player decides they are or aren't intimidated. That's fine.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don’t know why you feel that way. Rules provide support. Guidance provides support. Both are contained within the text. Seems incredibly straightforward to me that when assessing what the text does or doesn’t support, both would be taken into consideration.

I mean, the difference is very straightforward:

• Rules are rules
• Guidance is sorta rules but the DM can ignore
• Also, the DM can ignore all the rules because rulings not rules

 

[Charlaquin]

yeah 2e had only thieves had 'skills' and one was X% open locks... if you rolled under that on a d100 it opened, if it was over the number the lock was 'beyond you' and you could not roll again until you upped the skill (so level up) or in some way you improved the circumstances... I hated it in 2e when it WAS the rule... in 3e I think there might have been something suggested but not sure... 4e and 5e have no such rule, and I would consider it a major red flag if a DM house ruled it.

Gotcha. Yeah, that’s the sort of ruling I’m talking about. I know a lot of DMs prefer to rule this way; many of them on these forums, and I’ve argued with them at length about it. Like I said, I’ve observed a correlation (not necessarily a causation) between DMs who prefer the Roll With It style and DMs who rule ability checks this way.

 

[Lanefan]

yeah 2e had only thieves had 'skills' and one was X% open locks... if you rolled under that on a d100 it opened, if it was over the number the lock was 'beyond you' and you could not roll again until you upped the skill (so level up) or in some way you improved the circumstances... I hated it in 2e when it WAS the rule... in 3e I think there might have been something suggested but not sure... 4e and 5e have no such rule, and I would consider it a major red flag if a DM house ruled it.

Where to me the one-roll rule is excellent. But then, I don't mind PCs failing at one method and thus being forced to try another. Can't pick the lock? Beat the door down. Can't beat it down? Deconstruct it. Can't deconstruct it? Well, maybe you just ain't going that way until you try something different.

I absolutely despise 3e's Take-20 rule, which assumes you'll always come up with your absolute best every time and makes every ability or skill check purely binary - you can either make the DC or you can't. I want more variability in the results e.g. some days you could make this DC, but not today.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't see how this can be abused. The orc tries to intimidate them. The player decides they are or aren't intimidated. That's fine.

The player who would decide that their character is not going to be intimidated no matter what the situation described by the DM, is probably not the kind of player who is going to be able to work well with a system that gives their character some kind of enforced direction anyway.