Is it possible to avoid skill checks given hard work

[Aidamis]

Hello. I just created a character who often manages to her what they want from people but noticed the build had only ten Cha and no face skill proficiencies. But then I recalled that even IRL for tasks such as earning someone's trust and convincing people one does not always need to be a Ghandi or a Steve Jobs. So concretely my question is this: if we assume the party to be undercover, can the Barbarian still get his way if they just behave like a decent human being and avoid suspicious stuff? Similarly if said Barbarian is suspected of stealing and has to talk their way out alone is it possible to convince the GM to let the character honestly plead their case with little in the way of dice-rolling? Because as much as the rules are here to mostly make our lives easier a Persuasion check, even with Advantage isn't really gonna help, nor in my opinion, would represent accurately the character's actions. Meanwhile honest argumentation understandable by anyone with common sense is. However since we're on the subject of rules and actions I recall that in Dragon Warriors the GM had access to an entire table of DC influencing factors for different situations. Thus I assume that in DnD even if I have to roll I might somehow lower the DC depending on the context and the GM's final judgement. So is it still possible for a low Cha no face skills character to reasonably succeed in a "social" situation in spite of not being mechanically optimised for it?
Thank you very much for your feedback

[kazaryu]

Hello. I just created a character who often manages to her what they want from people but noticed the build had only ten Cha and no face skill proficiencies. But then I recalled that even IRL for tasks such as earning someone's trust and convincing people one does not always need to be a Ghandi or a Steve Jobs. So concretely my question is this: if we assume the party to be undercover, can the Barbarian still get his way if they just behave like a decent human being and avoid suspicious stuff? Similarly if said Barbarian is suspected of stealing and has to talk their way out alone is it possible to convince the GM to let the character honestly plead their case with little in the way of dice-rolling? Because as much as the rules are here to mostly make our lives easier a Persuasion check, even with Advantage isn't really gonna help, nor in my opinion, would represent accurately the character's actions. Meanwhile honest argumentation understandable by anyone with common sense is. However since we're on the subject of rules and actions I recall that in Dragon Warriors the GM had access to an entire table of DC influencing factors for different situations. So is it still possible for a low Cha no face skills character to reasonably succeed in a "social" situation in spite of not being mechanically optimised for it?
Thank you very much for your feedback

it depends on teh nature of the situation, and the GM.

base rules? yes, but it would be very difficult.
one thing to keep in mind, irl most of the people you're talking to have *at most* a 13 in a given ability score, and +1 prof in a few skills. also you gotta remember that irl skill checks likely happen much more frequently than you realize, particularly social ones.

all that being said, it really does come down to the GM. IMO if your character isn't acting in a way as to draw suspicion to themselves, they shouldn't need to make a check. however, if they *do* draw some suspicion, then by definition they're making a check to get out of it. now, this is where IMO the varient rule for skill checks comes in. depending on how you word your argument, you should be able to substitute different ability scores for the skill check.

[Tanarii]

Checks are for things that are one shot, and failure state changes things so you cannot try again. They’re also for things that have a chance of failure or success, and are not a sure thing one way or the other.

You can DM-fiat your way around a check completely by choosing an approach and intent that makes them go “this has no possible chance of failure”. Flip side is the chosen approach and intent may not have the outcomes or consequences you desire.

[BurgerBeast]

At my table, the answer is 100% yes. Just like in real life, responsible and accountable people are seen as such not (necessarily) because of high charisma, but rather because they demonstrate that they behave responsibly and accountably over and over again.

Whom you trust is not a function of how persuasive they are. It is a function of how trustworthy they are.

The interpersonal skills are rhetorical ways of persuading people. Most people are capable of distinguishing rhetoric from true substance.

Every instance is a specific and particular instance that must be evaluated independently. Some people simply cannot be intimidated - they will suffer torture or die before they do as you wish. Other people will not be persuaded by you because you’ve tricked them before. Other people will be persuaded more easily by the right approach. Others still will be persuaded by the right person. Others can be persuaded to do this thing but not that thing. And others still are so agreeable that they will be persuaded by almost anyone under any circumstances.

If the DM just doesn’t have enough information to decide what happens, he can assign a DC.

[JackPhoenix]

Ignoring the whole part that the GM should only call for check when a) the outcome is in doubt and b) the failure is interesting and/or dangerous...


Hello. I just created a character who often manages to her what they want from people but noticed the build had only ten Cha and no face skill proficiencies.

WotC D&D are stat-driven games, even if the mechanics for ability checks in 5e are less exact than in previous editions.

You have not, in fact, created a character who often manages to get what they want from people if you don't have stats to back that claim up. I may say I've created a character who regularly kills dragons and demons for a living, but if I'm level 1, the first encounter with a dragon or a demon will prove otherwise.

[LibraryOgre]

I wouldn't let you avoid the check, but hard work to get a better chance? That's what advantage and bonuses are for.

[redwizard007]

Hello. I just created a character who often manages to her what they want from people but noticed the build had only ten Cha and no face skill proficiencies. But then I recalled that even IRL for tasks such as earning someone's trust and convincing people one does not always need to be a Ghandi or a Steve Jobs. So concretely my question is this: if we assume the party to be undercover, can the Barbarian still get his way if they just behave like a decent human being and avoid suspicious stuff? Similarly if said Barbarian is suspected of stealing and has to talk their way out alone is it possible to convince the GM to let the character honestly plead their case with little in the way of dice-rolling? Because as much as the rules are here to mostly make our lives easier a Persuasion check, even with Advantage isn't really gonna help, nor in my opinion, would represent accurately the character's actions. Meanwhile honest argumentation understandable by anyone with common sense is. However since we're on the subject of rules and actions I recall that in Dragon Warriors the GM had access to an entire table of DC influencing factors for different situations. Thus I assume that in DnD even if I have to roll I might somehow lower the DC depending on the context and the GM's final judgement. So is it still possible for a low Cha no face skills character to reasonably succeed in a "social" situation in spite of not being mechanically optimised for it?
Thank you very much for your feedback

Yes. You can absolutely substitute the player's abilities and skills when they benefit you. That is why strong players get to hit the DM with a bat instead of making attack and damage rolls. It's also why good athletes never have to roll to jump a pit. The rules are only there to give you a chance to do things you aren't already good at like spellcasting.

[Anymage]

Define "succeed".

Can a low Cha, no social skills character keep their head down and avoid drawing notice? Not really a problem. Most people just kinda blend into the background, it's okay if this happens without a roll.

You build trust with your teammates and any closely attached NPCs over a long span of time? Again, sure. Long stretches of narrative time can justify relatively minor things without needing to force everything into an ability check model.

Is a 10 Cha, no social skills character any good at talking their way out of tense situations? They may have contacts or suchlike they can fall back on (see: background features), but in the moment they don't get treated differently than any other schmoe in the same situation. Asking a stranger on the street for directions or buying something from a shop are generally autosucceed scenarios. Not getting hassled by guards when you're just going about your day is the norm in most decent settlements. If the guards do have reason to question you about something, though, you're unlikely to drop things just because you're such an upstanding citizen. Doubly so because, if you're going somewhere undercover, by definition you haven't had much chance to build up reputations with people that might help counterbalance your initial social weakness.

[Aidamis]

Thank you everyone for the very insightful feedback. I especially like the contacts idea since the character does indeed come from a smuggler background. However their role was more "muscle" than "brain". I'll just negotiate with my GM then adapt improvise overcome :)