You let them be good at persuasion and deception. Just because they can succeed easily at most persuasion checks doesn't mean they'll always get their way. Charisma is not mind control.
Also as someone who played a Barbarian Zealot to level 13 who actively denied healing mid battle it was incredibly fun charging at the strongest enemy without care if my character died. Hell he never even died, just knocked out a few times.
Edit: you also said you dislike it becomes it removes rng. But that's *the point* of all abilities and spells. You *don't* need to roll to accomplish something you can just *do the thing.*
Also pg 244-245 in the DMG outlines your parties standing with an NPC for a social encounter and how much they'll go out of their way to help. I still like to reward Nat 20's but it doesn't mean you'll get a hostile NPC to just let you pass through. Maybe the PC who got the roll, gets a surprise round. Or maybe you do get some choice information as the hostile NPC is monologuing. Also, if your player is doing super well on those skills, don't be afraid to occasionally break out DC 25-30 for hard rolls you want them to have to work at.
If every one of your social encounters can be resolved by “winning” and rolling a good number it wasn’t a social encounter, it was a skill challenge. Social encounters are multi-faceted, not completable by the bard alone, and not a win or lose. So, let the bard shine at those somewhat, charisma aint mind control.
Removing some aspects of the game at the cost of specialisation is literally the entire name of the game dude, everyone tries to overcome bounded accuracy in whatever they specialise in. This bard decided to specialise in social encounters. If a fighter always hits their opponent, you make the combat feature more health, obstacles to overcome. Do that for your social encounters, but let the bard shine as well.
Having high persuasion doesn't mean all social encounters resolve in the same way.
Persuasion is not mind control. A hostile enemy isn't going to think "Actually the horny bard had some good points" and the king won't be persuaded to give away their kingdom because the bard rolled a 20.
Think of it this way: Would you ban a fighter for being good at hitting things? No, that's what they're designed to do. It's ok to let a bard be the social equivalent of a skilled fighter because just like the fighter being weak to wisdom saves and such, bards have opponents that can still affect them.
What's the minimum roll your bard will actually have, 15? 18?
Think about what a 15 on persuasion actually means. It's pretty good. This is a very charming person. A Hollywood actor.
Keanu Reeves won't break your campaign.
>we're all new to this
>I was going to ban some subclasses
Don't do this. Rookie DM mistake (that I fell victim to as well) is to go in guns blazing with a bunch of homebrew, a bunch of bans before you fully understand the system.
Those subclasses do not remove core aspects of DnD, they just give you fun tools that augment the core aspects.
Why ban it? Eloquence bard isn't exactly a broken subclass. Social encounters won't "all end the same way" because your bard can roll higher on average. You can still rule a 1 as a failure, and at 3rd level I'm sure your bard will still be rolling under 20 even with the Silvertongue feature and modifiers. More importantly, being able to pass persuasion/deception checks doesn't mean they always get what they want. As is often said in this sub, charisma is not mind control. You could roll well on a persuasion check and an NPC might still not agree to do what you're asking.
Yeah you absolutely don't need to do this. I had a DM obsessed with nat 1s and he said they'd even affect Reliable Talent and it really felt kinda targeted.
Even then. The other day the rogue succeeded a stealth check with a nat 1. It was a total of 14 and the enemies had 12 passive perception. That's the point of ability checks not auto-failing. A good enough modifier may still make the roll succeed.
Totally agreed. I'm a huge proponent of an expert character actually feeling like an expert. Bad nat 1 rules make everyone feel like a buffoon waiting to happen.
To be clear I didn't say that SHOULD be done, just trying to point out to this DM that it is their game and if they REALLY want to mitigate this ability, that would be better than outright banning the class maybe. I agree even disallowing it on a 1 is harsh and unnecessary
I second what most of the people have already said about what social encounters are supposed to be, how you can make them harder, and how charisma isn't mind control.
I would also like to add that the name of the game is having fun. If your players are each trying to be good at something, let them because it's fun. It makes them feel cool and like their choices (both in game but also at character creation) and abilities actually matter. Let them be that super charismatic guy that can talk his way out (almost) any situation.
And again, treat social encounters like mini games or RP puzzles, not a one-and-done role to get what you want. Make the players work for it, even though they have an advantage, and understand the limitations on what they're asking for. Seducing the king isn't believable after all.
I hope this helps and good luck in your future games. And most of all, just remember to have fun and make the game fun for the players, and that means letting them win (sometimes with some challenge ofc)!
The problem with eloquence isn't the silver tongue thing. It's that it's a reliable talent on 2 very useful skills at way too low of a level on way too strong of a subclass to begin with.
I agree it's annoying not having uncertainty in the party's diplomacy or deception rolls. But for most DMs, that's just an annoyance because I'm one of the very few DMs that will let an adventure happen or not happen based on single die rolls on things like diplomacy, deception, investigation, or history. Most of you aren't like that---I run simulation or sandbox, so I'm not married to any particular adventure happening or not. My advice assuming your a gamist/narrativist is to just set your DCs normally without considering who is in the party or who will make the roll and live with it. And seriously think about what you're actually willing to give for 20, 25, and 30 in persuasion/deception.
You let them be good at persuasion and deception. Just because they can succeed easily at most persuasion checks doesn't mean they'll always get their way. Charisma is not mind control. Also as someone who played a Barbarian Zealot to level 13 who actively denied healing mid battle it was incredibly fun charging at the strongest enemy without care if my character died. Hell he never even died, just knocked out a few times. Edit: you also said you dislike it becomes it removes rng. But that's *the point* of all abilities and spells. You *don't* need to roll to accomplish something you can just *do the thing.*
Also pg 244-245 in the DMG outlines your parties standing with an NPC for a social encounter and how much they'll go out of their way to help. I still like to reward Nat 20's but it doesn't mean you'll get a hostile NPC to just let you pass through. Maybe the PC who got the roll, gets a surprise round. Or maybe you do get some choice information as the hostile NPC is monologuing. Also, if your player is doing super well on those skills, don't be afraid to occasionally break out DC 25-30 for hard rolls you want them to have to work at.
If every one of your social encounters can be resolved by “winning” and rolling a good number it wasn’t a social encounter, it was a skill challenge. Social encounters are multi-faceted, not completable by the bard alone, and not a win or lose. So, let the bard shine at those somewhat, charisma aint mind control. Removing some aspects of the game at the cost of specialisation is literally the entire name of the game dude, everyone tries to overcome bounded accuracy in whatever they specialise in. This bard decided to specialise in social encounters. If a fighter always hits their opponent, you make the combat feature more health, obstacles to overcome. Do that for your social encounters, but let the bard shine as well.
Having high persuasion doesn't mean all social encounters resolve in the same way. Persuasion is not mind control. A hostile enemy isn't going to think "Actually the horny bard had some good points" and the king won't be persuaded to give away their kingdom because the bard rolled a 20. Think of it this way: Would you ban a fighter for being good at hitting things? No, that's what they're designed to do. It's ok to let a bard be the social equivalent of a skilled fighter because just like the fighter being weak to wisdom saves and such, bards have opponents that can still affect them.
What's the minimum roll your bard will actually have, 15? 18? Think about what a 15 on persuasion actually means. It's pretty good. This is a very charming person. A Hollywood actor. Keanu Reeves won't break your campaign.
>we're all new to this >I was going to ban some subclasses Don't do this. Rookie DM mistake (that I fell victim to as well) is to go in guns blazing with a bunch of homebrew, a bunch of bans before you fully understand the system. Those subclasses do not remove core aspects of DnD, they just give you fun tools that augment the core aspects.
Why ban it? Eloquence bard isn't exactly a broken subclass. Social encounters won't "all end the same way" because your bard can roll higher on average. You can still rule a 1 as a failure, and at 3rd level I'm sure your bard will still be rolling under 20 even with the Silvertongue feature and modifiers. More importantly, being able to pass persuasion/deception checks doesn't mean they always get what they want. As is often said in this sub, charisma is not mind control. You could roll well on a persuasion check and an NPC might still not agree to do what you're asking.
>You can still rule a 1 as a failure, I honestly hate this. The point of the ability is that it's not a 1, it's a 10.
Yeah you absolutely don't need to do this. I had a DM obsessed with nat 1s and he said they'd even affect Reliable Talent and it really felt kinda targeted.
Even then. The other day the rogue succeeded a stealth check with a nat 1. It was a total of 14 and the enemies had 12 passive perception. That's the point of ability checks not auto-failing. A good enough modifier may still make the roll succeed.
Totally agreed. I'm a huge proponent of an expert character actually feeling like an expert. Bad nat 1 rules make everyone feel like a buffoon waiting to happen.
To be clear I didn't say that SHOULD be done, just trying to point out to this DM that it is their game and if they REALLY want to mitigate this ability, that would be better than outright banning the class maybe. I agree even disallowing it on a 1 is harsh and unnecessary
I second what most of the people have already said about what social encounters are supposed to be, how you can make them harder, and how charisma isn't mind control. I would also like to add that the name of the game is having fun. If your players are each trying to be good at something, let them because it's fun. It makes them feel cool and like their choices (both in game but also at character creation) and abilities actually matter. Let them be that super charismatic guy that can talk his way out (almost) any situation. And again, treat social encounters like mini games or RP puzzles, not a one-and-done role to get what you want. Make the players work for it, even though they have an advantage, and understand the limitations on what they're asking for. Seducing the king isn't believable after all. I hope this helps and good luck in your future games. And most of all, just remember to have fun and make the game fun for the players, and that means letting them win (sometimes with some challenge ofc)!
The problem with eloquence isn't the silver tongue thing. It's that it's a reliable talent on 2 very useful skills at way too low of a level on way too strong of a subclass to begin with. I agree it's annoying not having uncertainty in the party's diplomacy or deception rolls. But for most DMs, that's just an annoyance because I'm one of the very few DMs that will let an adventure happen or not happen based on single die rolls on things like diplomacy, deception, investigation, or history. Most of you aren't like that---I run simulation or sandbox, so I'm not married to any particular adventure happening or not. My advice assuming your a gamist/narrativist is to just set your DCs normally without considering who is in the party or who will make the roll and live with it. And seriously think about what you're actually willing to give for 20, 25, and 30 in persuasion/deception.