D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

And whether that uncertainty exists is for the GM to decide.

And the rules support some decisions and don’t support others.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The PC cannot narrate paying their own drink as they have no money. The NPC took their money!

Right. But the player can still declare an action to pay, it’s just going to end awkwardly.

But you know this.

 

[clearstream]

If you choose how to act in response to an action whose only function is to make you act a certain way, there is no uncertainty to be settled in whether it succeeds or fails.

Unless the DM decides that circumstances dictate otherwise.

 

[Bill Zebub]

BTW, I think the argument that traits* and spells could override roleplaying 'rule' but ability checks can not, is pretty damn pointless, considering that the GM can give the NPCs any spells or traits they want, or just whole cloth make up ones. So basically all the GM would need to do under such interpretation to declare that the NPC has a trait that allows them to affect the PC and the argument would be moot.

(*Such as Swasbuckler's Panacahe.)

I’ve said upthread that I’d be totally fine with the DM making up an adversary on the spot that has an ability with the desired mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Unless the DM decides that circumstances dictate otherwise.

Right. If the DM is going to claim authority…and if the players are willing to grant it…to arbitrarily say that the NPC automatically succeeds at persuading/intimidating/seducing/etc., then your other interpretations logically follow.

 

[clearstream]

I’ve said upthread that I’d be totally fine with the DM making up an adversary on the spot that has an ability with the desired mechanics.

And that is one of the facts that bears on my proposing a much simpler and more consistent reading. What is the pay off for digging our heels in on some notion of prior-certainty given that if a DM wished to achieve it another way working tightly within the rules, they can!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve said upthread that I’d be totally fine with the DM making up an adversary on the spot that has an ability with the desired mechanics.

Then the whole argument is utter sophistry as the end result will be the same! So why not just skip the pointless bit where we waste time inventing mechanics to overcome an imagined restriction that doesn't in effect restrict anything anyway?

 

[clearstream]

Right. If the DM is going to claim authority…and if the players are willing to grant it…to arbitrarily say that the NPC automatically succeeds at persuading/intimidating/seducing/etc., then your other interpretations logically follow.

Where did automatically come into this? It is true that the DMG specifically endorses a DM in deciding if something succeeds, fails, or needs a roll of some kind.

 

[Charlaquin]

BTW, I think the argument that traits* and spells could override roleplaying 'rule' but ability checks can not, is pretty damn pointless, considering that the GM can give the NPCs any spells or traits they want, or just whole cloth make up ones. So basically all the GM would need to do under such interpretation to declare that the NPC has a trait that allows them to affect the PC and the argument would be moot.

Sure. If the DM gives the NPC a trait, such as a dragon’s Intimidating Presence or a vampire’s Charm, which is capable of forcing a character to think, speak, or act a certain way, that forms a specific exception to the general rule. Typically such traits are resolved by the target making a saving throw to avoid the effect rather than the creature making an ability check to impose it, but in theory I could imagine such a trait specifying that the creature makes an ability check, perhaps against a passive score of the target, or more likely, contested by the target’s ability check, then yeah, that could work.

(*Such as Swasbuckler's Panacahe.)

Great example of such a trait! Yes, an NPC with this trait could absolutely use it on a PC, and the DM would be supported in resolving it as the text of the ability describes.

 

[clearstream]

And the rules support some decisions and don’t support others.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that both our readings are equally valid. We are for whatever reason unable to choose between them. And let us surrender for a moment our feelings of the greater perfection of our own readings.

We might then think about how we cash them out. What does your reading gain, that mine does not?