Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8473985" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I haven’t abandoned anything. It is true that the text in the players’ handbook describing how skills are used is framed in terms of a PC being the one taking action. It is also true that the DM can make ability checks to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of an NPC’s action, and that the NPC’s proficiency bonus can apply to such an ability check if one of the NPC’s skills or other proficiencies is relevant. It is not true, in my evaluation, that the outcome of an action an NPC takes to try and socially influence a PC is uncertain.Indeed it doesn’t, but the outcome of such an action would not be uncertain either.The DM certainly can decide that the outcome of an action made to socially influence a player character is uncertain, just as the DM can decide that the outcome of an action made to harm the player character physically is not uncertain. However, I do not see support in the rules for the DM doing either.How Charisma checks work is the DM calls for them when the outcome of an action made to influence another character is uncertain. The player’s handbook  expresses this to the player as, “A charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.” Those are all examples of times a player could expect the DM to call for a Charisma check. They are not exhaustive, and they are not the only cases a Charisma check might be used, but they are sufficient to communicate to the player when they may be called upon to make such a check. They do not seem to support the idea that the DM ought to make such a check when an NPC takes an action meant to socially influence a player.I don’t know what you’re going on about with rules having teeth or bites. None of the rules of D&D have teeth, the rules go out of their way to tell you to ignore them if you want to. And I’m not saying people shouldn’t do so. I’m saying, I don’t see support in the rules for the DM making an ability check when an NPC tries to socially influence a PC. Folks can (and regularly do) do things without the rules’ support, and that’s fine.I think you are getting the wrong idea about what I’m saying. “My side” is that the rules don’t seem to instruct the DM to make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC. If one were to argue that the rules don’t say the DM shouldn’t make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC, I would have no objection. But people have been trying to argue that the rules do tell the DM to make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC. And so far, I have not seen very convincing arguments in support of that position.What are you talking about? Of course arguments can be wrong.When the rules say “ignore these rules if you feel like it,” I see no point in arguing about what is or isn’t a “wrong way to play in relation to the rules.” The rules permit everything, no position that something isn’t allowed by the rules really holds up. I am instead taking a position on what the rules support. By the rules, you don’t have to follow the rules, but there are some things the rules will support you in doing, and some things you’re on your own with. I believe that the DM making ability checks to resolve actions made to socially influence PCs is the latter category of thing.No, since the rules say you can ignore them, you are not playing incorrectly by the rules. You are, however, playing in a way the rules don’t support. You’re voiding the warranty, in a sense.Agreed.</blockquote>

Verification