Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8473215" data-attributes="member: 16814">First, let me start by saying that I do not let social skills affect PCs in my 5e games.  This is, however, because I make it explicit as a table rule that they do not.  The 5e rules actually make no case either way.There is no difference between the combat rules and social skill rules how you're making it. That they're of different resolutions is trivial to the point -- yes, combat rules are a higher resolution than non-combat rules in 5e.  This isn't sufficient to say that there are categorically different, however.  They both are tools for the GM in situations where the GM determines that there is uncertainty and chooses to use the system to resolve that uncertainty.  The difference isn't one of kind, but degree. The combat rules are more detailed and provide a clearer context for what it to be usually considered uncertain and how that uncertainty is resolved.  They aren't different from social rules in the critical sense for this discussion -- they resolve uncertainty after the GM has made that determination and chosen to use those mechanics to resolve it.While I agree, it would not be a violation of the basic play loop or the authority of the GM to do so.  5e puts almost no constraints on the GM's authority to determine outcomes however the GM wishes and leaves such constraints to the social contract at the table (and, generally, the the social zeitgeist of the hobby).  It's not actually a different thing, though, as far as the system is concerned.  Need to be careful about importing meta-concerns into an evaluation of what rules are.Technically, the RoI for everything on you sheet is subject to GM whim.  There's no guarantee that anything you've chosen will be a) honored or b) relevant. Again, 5e leaves such things to the table social contract -- it does not choose to define it in any way.The case for social skills being applied to PC is about as strong as the case for them not being applicable.  Both rest on flimsy assumptions. (The one for not-applicable starts earlier in assuming the description for roleplaying is a general rule to start, but also that exceptions must be clearly stated for them to be actual exceptions.  In reality, the Charm Person spell is not clear it's an exception exactly as the Persuasion skill is not clear it's an exception.  To be logical, you'd have to either include or exclude both -- or make a conscious choice to alter the rules.)</blockquote>

Verification