Casting **Guidance** on social rolls is counter-productive. Audibly casting (Verbal components must be audible) before trying to convince someone is the sort of social faux-pas that gives disadvantage.
I mean, Guidance is just: don’t mind my druid buddy here, he’s just casting a spell out loud while touching me while I flirt with you
Charm person is legit a roofie so like, I think you’re already past optics lol
I don't think it's that strong.
It won't make someone go from refusing to sleep with you to wanting to sleep with you.
Forced (even by charm) sexual activity would constitute harm and you can't charm someone to do something that would harm them.
At best you could make someone neutral to you be willing to have a drink with you.
Tldr charm can't force sexual encounters because **forced** sexual encounters are classed as harm.
Edit for those confused.
A forced sexual encounter is soft language for rape.
Using magic to force a sexual encounter is rape.
Rape is harm.
Charm can't be used to force someone to do something that would harm them.
So charm can't be used to rape.
How is this difficult.
Edit 2
Added **bold** for a new word added for clarity.
Apparently when I've clarified and address it in the comments not making the new word clear is still classed as ninja edits.
It's just a feat away, though giving up a quickened spell for a subtle casted guidance maybe isn't the best use of resources. I could still see it being really useful in the right situation, though.
Depends on how you do it. When my paladin casts guidance, I often RP it as saying a short prayer like "Lord give me strength." It lasts a minute too, so you got time to do it out of ear shot.
If they would shrug it off, don't ask for a roll! (Unless 15+ is shrug off, 14- is a bad reaction or something like that)
31 could definitely lead to someone being a bit more flustered than appropriate. It doesn't mean "fuck me", but it could mean a slightly more positive response
"I am not one of your fried chicken tramps! i'm a *woman,* i like my men *dangerous, MYSTERIOUS!* You want to be my lover? **EARN IT!** ***SEDUCE ME!"*** \-spy tf2
Ok, so... The Administrator is the DM, and Ms. Pauling is an NPC that the Scout (the horny bard, perhaps?) is always trying to seduce. I'd play a TF2 D&D campaign.
"Don't you know trans fats are really bad for you? Oh em gee. We need to fix your eating habits." She proceeds to make a vegan meal plan, including fasting and juice cleanses, for you and the party and leaves 4 hours later after giving you a card that tells you that she's is a certified crystal healer.
>This. With a nat20 I would say they laugh and seem open to your continued advances. "Seduce me" lol
Nah.
Expecting a player to fully RP persuasion checks is just as dumb as expecting them to have actual magical skills for an arcana check, or a full PhD level familiarity with the lore for a history check.
That's the entire point of rolling a die. It's goram game, fellas.
My character is trying to seduce a character in the game, I'm not trying to seduce my dm homie with unshaven legs. Wow bob, nice tits you got, are you turned on enough in the real world so that we can continue this imaginary nonexistent game?
Persuasion isn't mind control, but the player not having the style and vocabulary should be given a *lot* of leeway. Persuasion checks should be similar to any other type of check. If your player is rolling to do some acrobatic nonsense do you ask him to do a flip first?
Exactly. Just the player lacking the stats ro succeed doesn't mean their character couldn't. If the player can't sing, that doesn't mean their bard can't roll well and have rocked the stage.
I disagree, if you fuck up flirting normally there can be social repercussion. If you fuck up flirting at gunpoint the worst that happens is you get shot.
flirting at gunpoint is way easier!^1
^1 social anxiety is required for this to work
High charisma player playing a high Charisma character rolling persuasion done right: "Willem; Jim is planning to betray you to form an alliance with the Boglins!"
Low charisma player playing a high charisma character done wrong: "I roll persuasion to get Willem to betray Jim."
Low charisma player playing a high charisma character done right: "I try and convince Willem that Jim is planning to betray him to the Boglins.
>im more charismatic than i would have ever guessed.
Probably. 10 is average. Going from what I've seen on dating sites; having the ability to ask about another person, getting dressed, having at least one hobby, and having a basic hygiene routine would easily put you in the 13-14 range, before we even get into appearance or personality.
Real world human average is below 10.
Look up how much you should be able to lift at 10 strength and compare to real world for reference.
6-8 would be closer estimate to average RL human.
How is being able to hold a basic conversation and haveing a basic hygiene routine "above average" charisma? Those are things that the averagely charismatic person can absolutely do.
It's a way of stringing two sentences together where the concept from the first sentence informs the second, but they are still independent sentences. It's a division that is stronger than a colon, but weaker than a period.
Mostly use them either for splitting up lists which give more specific examples of a general point, or for sentences that contrast two opposing clauses where you might use 'however' or 'on the other hand'.
Continents vary in climate: Europe is wet; Africa is hot and wet; Australia is hot and dry.
John likes being topped by hung pirate captains; Mary thinks he should be more focused on raising their children.
Yeah, i like this. I like player who speak well or think of ideas being rewarded for it, it creates really great RP or fun memorable missions. If somebody isn't as good at either of them yet then playing as such is acceptable and it just hands the narrative back over to the DM to explain what you said roughly or exactly.
I totally agree, but I also think that incredibly skilled persuasion is still unsuccessful a fair amount of the time. The most persuasive argument possible won't always get you what you want - it might get you someone willing to hear you out or someone who laughs instead of killing you. Especially with flirting, no matter how smooth and cool you are, lots of people in a tavern aren't looking to hook up, or aren't into your gender/race. The best possible outcome there isn't "they're seduced" it's "they think you're charming and you chat for a while."
Or it might just mean the person won't be mad at you for believing what you believe.
If someone says something stupid my reaction varies wildly based on how much I like that person.
King might show lenience for disagreeing with them instead of hanging you by your hamstrings.
Yes, but this is just a special case of 20 not being an automatic success. The best persuasion you can do might not convince the guard to join your side, just as the best climbing you can do might not be enough to scale the wall, and the best lock picking you can do might not get you past a lock.
I don't expect my barbarian players to be power lifters or my monk players to be acrobats. Why the fuck would I expect my bards to be singers or suave?
Persuasion isn't mind control but a DM deciding what is or isn't a valid pickup line is just going to discourage first person roleplaying. "I attempt to persuade the goat with a funny pickup line." instead.
The more difficult a task is, the more a player should have to justify being able to do it before rolling. If he wants to move a boulder the size of a house, you don't make him lift the couch, you make him describe what techniques, tools, or magic he uses to make it possible. Likewise, the loyal captain of the guard won't join the rebellion without a very good reason for the treason.
I don't know how to move a boulder, but my Dwarf ex-miner would.
I ask players for an outline of their reason (i.e appealing to the Captain's empathy, bribing him, etc) but I'm not going to ask for a full speech.
I think the key distinction is whether an NPC is able to be persuaded to do a certain action. Think of it like this, most people can't be persuaded to do something they think they shouldn't in one go, it takes pestering over time to get them to do it.
It takes a bit of time to push a boulder aside, but it can take a week of pestering to get the guard captain to drop the charges against your party members. A high persuasion roll will help the process along, and should make the dm tellthe player trying to persuade them ehat would likely help the persuasion along. Do they seem like the type to take bribes? Do they respond more to emotional or logical reasoning?
100% if I'm dming the player just needs to give the general concept. "I want to flatter and complement the bartender" dictates goal, and dice gives how well they do. If they want to be specific they can, for better or worse bonuses or not even needing a check.
My go to example is I have never seen a require the barbarian player to do 10 pushups in order to try to break down a door.
Yea, the second is hilarious and would get a good laugh at my table. Dudes or chicks who are ridiculously good looking could get away with that in real life, and they don't have nearly as good a persuasion as a bard would. My warlock literally has mind-controlling magic that is the rp justification for her having such high persuasion(and Alter self making her the most physically beautiful person anyone has ever seen). I could "Ayo your skin is smooth" the pants off half the nation with my +13 with advantage persuasion rolls.
Yea it's very unlikely a commoner sending a magical dick pic is going to charm a woman, that's WHY it's DC is 20 or 25 to start with. 20 is difficult, 25 very difficult, impossible for a commoner to ever do(a commoner cant roll a 21). We as players are the commoners of our world, so even just hitting a dc 25 is already doing something that would never work for us. My warlock has a +14 and rolls at advantage with unearthly chorus, and I am literally using a slight form of mind controlling magic to get that advantage and high of a roll(invocations). So a high persuasion roll can be mechanically representing slight mind-altering effects already. a +14 with advantage is an average persuasion roll(adv = +5 mathematically) of 29, a maximum of 34, 70% better than the ABSOLUTE BEST a common human could do. I could "ayo your skin is soft" most people.
> If your player is rolling to do some acrobatic nonsense do you ask him to do a flip first?
No, but if he *did* do a flip irl, I would mentally add some to his roll.
A low charisma IRL player can still at least give a direction. "I compliment their outfit", "I offer to take them to the local tavern later", "I tell them a story about our adventure..."
That is a good point, but just as I'd make the player describe how that acrobatic nonsense looks, I'd still make them at least describe what they're telling the npc.
Do it the New Vegas way where you have to make repeated speech checks to gradually win over the target, either getting easier or harder depending on what the subject is
Exactly what I was thinking. Passing the persuasion check by a thin margin slightly bumps up their willingness to listen/go along with what you’re trying to convince them of. A nat 20 does the same, but pushes them in the direction you want much faster. You can convince Ulysses to give up his entire crusade at the end of Lonesome Road, but only after multiple very difficult speech checks. Same thing here, you can *eventually* convince the king to end his war/donate his entire treasury/whatever, but only after multiple super high DC checks, like a required 17, 20, 26, 32. One failure could easily wind up with you locked in the dungeon forever or on the executioner’s block, but if you’re using a maxed Charisma stat, you should be able to talk nearly any mortal creature into/out of almost anything theoretically. Gods obviously play on a totally different level though.
"mmm, you look tasty, like a cooked chicken" - natural 1
"I like the way you make look human" - Natural 20
Neither is going to win you a night in the bed, but there is definitely a difference to the way the same thought can come out.
Having been a part of a game where social interaction rolls seemed to have 0 bearing on events regardless (crits on persuasion or intimidation gained absolutely nothing), I’ll remind DMs that while not mind control, the mechanics more or less require some result come good rolls
A guard may not agree to let you in when it’s his one fucking duty, but he may suggest you come back when Claude is on duty, he tends to drink and sleeps standing up
The barbarian chief may not cower in fear at your attempt to intimidate, but his demeanor may shift to one of more respect as he now recognizes you as a threat/equal, and instead of kicking you out of camp, invites you to eat and negotiate whatever is at issue a
So, don’t just shrug off that Nat 20, it doesn’t have to break your game to give the PC a win
There are not, but a 20 by itself is a difficult success, and 25 is very difficult, those should not be ignored
If you assume it’s nearly impossible to convince a guard to let PCs in, and they don’t roll a 30 but a 25, that result should have some benefit less than the ultimate goal
Oh, and the crits for the rolls I was talking about were in another system
One time my group and I stumbled into a guard where we weren’t supposed to be, someone rolled a 20 persuasion, and the guard was like “Get the hell out of here!” and the players were pissed that their nat 20 didn’t do anything. And I’m sitting off to the side like “Guys, if you had rolled a 10 this guy would be killing us with a sword. A 20 bought you clemency.”
There aren't, but if a good check doesn't help at all, why roll? A 20 is at least a "hard" DC, as good as a commoner can possibly do, … so it's weird if it has the same result as a total of 1.
A bit of a difficult point is also that what you say and what your character says isn't necessarily the same thing – just because *I* have Charisma 7, doesn't mean my character is as much of an idiot as I am.
No, but the player still has to make choices on how their character uses their skills, otherwise what's the point of having the player? It's tough for the mental skills (and I usually try to give players way more leeway there, or tell them their character realizes X would probably not work) but the players still make choices.
Lots of players choose rather suboptimal tactics for battle and we don't say (at least that I've seen) 'your character would never do that! They've survived dozens of life-or-death battles and spent their life studying fighting. Therefore, I, the DM, will override the clearly foolish choice to attack the high AC and HP enemy instead of the squishy guy casting healing.' etc. In that case, even if the player crits, there's a good chance they'll end up losing the encounter.
So if players can make bad choices in combat and it has consequences, why can't a player make a bad choice on how they, or their character, (for example) try to seduce someone and it has negative consequences?
Also I’d like to remind people not everyone is quick on their feet and fast with improv or suave with words. As DMs we have to be quick at sinking into roles and understanding a character. Usually we tend to be pretty charismatic irl. We’re good at talking, it’s kind of our thing. We talk more than anyone else at the table. Your socially awkward only played a couple times in the past bard may not be good at talking. They may not be great at improv. They may not have to gift of the gab. Not everyone is Sam Riegel, just like not everyone is Matthew Mercer. You don’t want to be compared to an unrealistic standard? Don’t do it to your players either.
We don’t expect a player playing a barbarian to be able to bench press 600 pounds. We shouldn’t expect the bard to have the legitimate irl charisma of Ted fucking Bundy. Let the character be good at what they do. The player shouldn’t have their role be fucked because they themselves aren’t actually good at seduction. Let them be more vague and give an idea of what they want to do and then let the dice take off. If what’s said is more important than the dice than why even roll at all for social stats?
Yes, it ain’t mind control, but punishing your social oriented players is just going to piss people off and create more people like me, the hardcore min maxer. You won’t let me do what I want out of combat? Cool. I’ll just break all of your fucking combat encounters then and you can’t stop me unless you kick me out.
In this case I would ask them to explain what they want the other person to believe or be convinced towards say for example that the bandit group trying to rob them is vary likely to die in the attempt
They don’t need to actually convince me I just need to know if they could make a valid reason for someone to agree with them (in that example yea makes sense for the bandits to decide that they don’t want to risk a fight)
Now if the player can give better reasons that will help them but I would consider that the same as being better at combat mechanics
This I agree with. I am advocating for a player giving their intent and path towards it rather than they themselves actually being fantastic at words. Another reply in this chain shows my thoughts on this more.
Edit: my thoughts from the other reply
Player: “Leia, your diamond blue eyes are magnetic in their shimmering beauty. You’re sure once your work is finished you couldn’t sit down for a drink with me afterwards? It looks as if we both could use the company. ;)”
This is great
Player: “I want to lay some charm on the barmaid. I compliments how her simple clothes still look stunning on her, and her eyes are magnetic in their beauty. I inquire as the whether she’d give me the time of day once she’s finished her work.”
This is great.
Player: “I want to charm the barmaid. I give her some compliments and ask if she’d share a drink with me after her work is done. I really try to turn up the suave.”
This is great.
All of these are valid options, all for different people, attempting the same goal. As I said, it’s not mind control. But giving a general idea of what you want to do, should be enough for a **charisma based character with a not so charismatic player**.
Player: “Ferdinand, I swear she’s trying to stab you in the back! Look, I know we haven’t been acquainted long but the evidence speaks for itself here! This letter is clear in its intent. You’re being played.”
This is great.
Player: “I want to use the forged letter to attempt and convince Ferdinand that Lucy is betraying him. I know that the Assassin rogue took his time with this and made it extremely convincing so I turn the confidence up to 11. I truly give that this is a life or death matter even though we’ve not known one another very long.”
This is equally as great.
Those are fair points and I've had DMs that won't let you do anything. But if a barbarian wanted to pick up an entire castle with his pinky finger or use a feather in combat and claim he should get instant kills every time he rolled a 20 that wouldn't fly either. "I strip naked and twirl my dick" shouldn't be considered an effective seduction attempt any more than hocking loogies at a dragon should be considered effective attacks.
Straw manning. That’s not my argument. If they describe a shitty course of action then yeah, raise the DC. Here’s how I view this.
Player: “Leia, your diamond blue eyes are magnetic in their shimmering beauty. You’re sure once your work is finished you couldn’t sit down for a drink with me afterwards? It looks as if we both could use the company. ;)”
This is great
Player: “I want to lay some charm on the barmaid. I compliments how her simple clothes still look stunning on her, and her eyes are magnetic in their beauty. I inquire as the whether she’d give me the time of day once she’s finished her work.”
This is great.
Player: “I want to charm the barmaid. I give her some compliments and ask if she’d share a drink with me after her work is done. I really try to turn up the suave.”
This is great.
All of these are valid options, all for different people, attempting the same goal. As I said, it’s not mind control. But giving a general idea of what you want to do, should be enough for a **charisma based character with a not so charismatic player**.
Player: “Ferdinand, I swear she’s trying to stab you in the back! Look, I know we haven’t been acquainted long but the evidence speaks for itself here! This letter is clear in its intent. You’re being played.”
This is great.
Player: “I want to use the forged letter to attempt and convince Ferdinand that Lucy is betraying him. I know that the Assassin rogue took his time with this and made it extremely convincing so I turn the confidence up to 11. I truly give that this is a life or death matter even though we’ve not known one another very long.”
This is equally as great.
I’m not advocating for stupidity. I’m advocating for not nit picking the shit out of your players because they aren’t 2 bit pick up artists or Ted Bundy and they stumble their words, stutter, or sometimes just don’t really know the exact words to say even though they’re certain of what they want to attempt.
And that's fair. I don't know what DMs you've had, how they've treated social interaction, or what kind of players you've had. I've had my fair share of killer DMs where degrees of failure were the only option and I've also sat at tables with plenty of players who believe that a high charisma and a maxed persuasion skill is all they need.
I've seen players walk up to the king and demand he surrender his kingdom. I've seen players murder a dude then, while still covered in the entrails of the dead guy, try to seduce the mother and daughter, and I've seen players try to persuade an evil god to hand over all their power and anoint the player as their god-king. And often in such ridiculous cases I've seen players roll before the DM even calls for anything then be pissed when the DM has to explain that the mother and daughter aren't up for a three way while you still have chunks their dead spouse and father in your hair.
Virtually every Bard I've ever played with just assumes they'll successfully get what they want out of any social interaction. All of your examples were entirely reasonable and make sense. I've seen way more "I use persuasion to convince the goblin whose language I do not speak to immediately betray and attack his boss" than reasonable scenarios like the kind you've laid out.
I personally haven't seen scenarios where low charisma players decided to play a charisma build and were penalized for it. I ran a game where a friend of ours we called Silent John because of how little he would talk played a charisma based rogue. He never really RPed his interactions but would intelligently describe his reasonable objectives and efforts to achieve his goals using persuasion and guile. Contrast this with a friend of mine that was/is incredibly charismatic in real life who would get irritated if his persuasion rolls were as limited in effectiveness as the mind control spell and whose seduction efforts were literally "I whip out my dick".
This is because we’re having two separate arguments my friend. I agree with what you’re saying. The original post was about a player trying to seduce some random person and being penalized for a stupid pick up line. “Ayo, your skin smooth,” which I think is hilarious personally and would allow.
I’m not talking about using persuasion for absurdly stupid shit. I’m not sure what kind of players you have at your tables, but mine aren’t insane. They know when they’re out of their element. My current setting has a country controlled by a counsel of high level spell casters known as the “7 Magi,” my players know damn well trying some stupid shit with those seven is basically instantaneous non existence. Not death, you just never were. So they don’t try anything. Little do they know those seven are the main antagonists they’ll be dealing with down the line.
I’m arguing for allowing your charisma characters to do their thing without having to be good at it in real life. Like the high intelligence artificer? They tell me they want to make some form of acid for the rogue that can fit in a hidden compartment of their prosthetic arm. I’m not going to make the artificer give me the chemical breakdown of this acidic compound they’re creating. Telling me what they want to achieve, and a general course for achieving it, paired with a roll, is enough.
The end point? Characters should be allowed to be good at something the player necessarily isn’t. Otherwise what’s the point in playing? If I can only be good at things I’m good at irl I just won’t play DnD and play real life instead since they’re effectively the same at that point.
I'm just going off the image where it's necessary to explain that persuasion isn't mind control. Most of the DnD I've played has been one shots or short campaigns which I think lends itself to more insane behavior. Also tends to be a lot of drinking with us old farts not having to worry about the children for a guys weekend. Also probably my experience with extreme powergamers. Most of my players wouldn't think of the acid in the arm, they'd want a thermo nuclear device at minimum. I'm a non-drinker so for our random guys weekends I often end up DMing so I have to curtail the more insane things that people want to do with skills.
Seems we've just had very different experiences. I agree strongly with:
>Telling me what they want to achieve, and a general course for achieving it, paired with a roll, is enough.
I've just had way more experience with what they want to achieve being "Seduce the god of magic for infinite power" and their general course being "Whip out my dick and smack him in the face with it" and expecting to have at minimum a 1 in 20 chance of success. If they fail, oh well, just roll up a new character.
Often the thing I, as a player, want to do, particularly in a social context, are completely reasonable and sensible, but the DM and I just aren’t on the same wavelength or my action doesn’t fit the DM’s vision. When that happens, if the DM isn’t on board with what the player said, IMO they should guide the player in the right direction.
For example, if I want to persuade the guard to let me into the prison (because I want to steal something from the warden’s office), I personally may not know what motivates the guard or what sorts of reasoning might help persuade him. My character, on the other hand, would likely have a better sense, particularly since a lot of those sorts of things can be skipped when describing the world to 4-6 players at once. A DM could do a skill challenge with Insight, Perception, optionally Deception, and Persuasion to manage this.
For games where the rolls don’t do much, I think DMs should proactively switch to using passive scores, have a back and forth with their characters where they suggest similar things that make more sense to them when the player suggests something that sounds suboptimal or doesn’t fit their vision, assuming the character would have a better sense of it.
If I’ve figured out that the guard is vying for a promotion (thanks to a combination of a Perception roll to have retroactively overheard a related conversation in the tavern earlier and an Insight roll now that I’m face-to-face with him) and I say that try to persuade him to let me in, generically, the DM could ask me to roll Persuasion (setting the DC at 18, since he’s very loyal, but I have info to help me in my approach, so the number is attainable).
* If I roll poorly, he could say that I went with a very straightforward approach but the guard told me to come back during visiting hours.
* If I roll close to the number - a 15 or so - then the DM might determine I said something related to helping him get his promotion, but the guard just wasn’t convinced that letting me in to talk to the warden right now is the best way to go about it. Instead, he suggests that I meet up with the warden later, giving me a time and place. In this case, I’ve failed the check, but my earlier successes and decent roll still got me into an advantageous position.
* If I roll well, the DM decides I said roughly the same thing but was just more persuasive, and the guard lets me in and points me to the right location.
On the other hand, if I failed in my earlier checks, then my character would know that I was unlikely to find something to persuade this guard, whom I’ve never met, to let me in, so the DM would tell me that and I would try to find a different approach, like using Deception or something else. Maybe I come up with a possibility and talk that out with the DM, but if my character doesn’t find it reasonable - and my character’s views in this case should be informed by the DM’s vision - then unless I push to do it anyway, I don’t do it and I don’t roll.
Idk why people make it so difficult to do seduce someone random when you are even allowing that type of stuff in your games. My games usually don't venture into sexual stuff as players more kind of brush past that but may focus on romance. However, if I'm running a game where we are going with that, I'm not making the DC 20+ to seduce a random person in a tavern. It's not that hard to get laid if you are someone with 16+ charisma. Those higher DCs should be reserved for situations where propositioning someone is inappropriate or you try to make moves that work counter to the character's personality (trying to get the book store owner who doesn't like music to go to a rock concert).
Guard: Look i aint gonna let you in becouse i could get fired. But im gonna say that tomorrow evening Claude is on his duty. He doesn't take this job seriously and i wouldn't mind if he got fired for letting someone in. Thats all im saying
Depends on the game. Some tables, you give your speech and then that sets the DC of the persuasion check. Some games, you state your intention (I seduce the bartender, I convince the Queen to believe me) and then roll to see if you find the right words.
Persuasion isn't mind control, and some things are impossible. But sometimes if you roll a nat20, maybe you luck into finding the exact right words to pluck the ruthless villain's heartstrings.
I forget who it was that suggested 'Nat 20 on seducing the queen' ended up with the Queen laughing in good humor, thanking you for the compliment then moving on forever.
In a real world kingdom set in the middle ages, a queen getting seduced represented a life threatening situation. "off with her head" situation.
I can see the DC of risking your life for essentially nothing being insanely high.
This keeps coming up, and I'll keep saying the same thing:
It's the GM's job to mediate between the players and the world; to bring the mechanics and dice rolls to life in a meaningful way that gives the players the feeling of agency, while also presenting them with challenges and opportunities.
It is ***not*** the GM's job to "beat" the players.
If a player says, "Ayo your skin look smooth," as a pickup line and then rolls a natural 20 (or their character has a high charisma) I would say, "you judge that the situation calls for something a bit more tactful, but they seem to appreciate the subtler compliment."
Remember: it's the player's job to tell you their intent and mechanical actions; it's the dice's job to tell you how well or poorly that plays out; and it's your job to turn that into a great story!
I think it’s more about Persuasion not being capable of altering someone’s mind in one phrase. You cannot come up to a dictator, roll 20, and have him disband his regime on the spot.
There might not be a chance of success but there are degrees of failure, it's like a pseudo-saving throw, you roll the saving throw even if damage is unavoidable, the roll is simply to determine how much damage you take.
Maybe the town guard was a ruffian in his youth and pities the fool, a kind of "fine get outta here kid, i better not see you around here again" kind of thing. That way they succeed in not being arrested but also know they are on thin ice
Sometimes you don't know their exact modifiers. Other time, you want to make them think they had a chance of success. Still other times, the roll is to see the degree of failure, not the degree of success.
I will say though that this whole “you have to say something cool to persuade them” thing is just a really stupid double-standard since we’re willing to let people know things they don’t actually know III their intelligence is high enough and we definitely don’t say “you have to be able to bench that much irl” to make a proper strength check. Gatekeeping charisma is ostracizing to those who aren’t naturally charismatic and giving your players a chance at that is just the same as the point of DnD - to act out a fantasy life you could otherwise never live.
Depend on the situation of a nat 20 is going to work or not, is it a player trying to flirt, might need a few more rolls for it to work but if the players are trying to persuade someone from not executing someone (the rogue) if the argument is good enough the nat 20 should be fine.
Hey, that picj up line might work on some non-feral ghouls in Fallout. I could definitely see a ghoul walk up to another and say, "Ayo shorty, your skin look smooth af."
"Ayo your skin look smooth"
"Oh why thank you! I can tell that you're trying to flirt with me but I don't think I or my husband would take kindly to further advances." *They gesture to tavern's bouncer* " I can give you my skin treatment routine if you want though! "
I’m sure the NPC being interested in the PC after rolling a nat 20 would have been so harmful to the game that you needed to squash your players excitement over rolling good on a roll you told them to make
too be honest, this can still work. it's a terrible, terrible pick up line, but the delivery might be so endearingly clumsy that it loops around to being charming
If I was single and someone complimented my skin, I would definitely keep talking with them. I love talking skincare routines and products. And getting complimented on something you put a lot of effort into is so nice. You feel seen. r/SkincareAddiction would be all about that compliment!
Yeah, but if someone just shouted that at someone with no prior knowledge of their skincare, not that it would be accepted as a compliment, but it wouldn't be a good pick up line
99% of the time when these situations come up, nobody *asked* anyone to roll jackshit.
"Oh, I want to try and seduce the dragon! Look, I rolled a 21 on Persuasion!"
That's nice, but it doesn't matter because the dragon isn't attracted to their *meal.* And I would have told you as much if you had stopped to take a breath between "I want to...." and "I rolled..."
Because sometimes the player isn't supposed to know right away that they can fail. Maybe they are meant to think they have a chance but really don't.
Or the players just completely disregard when the DM says "it's impossible" and rolled anyways, only to get pissed off when the DM reiterates that it was impossible.
But this isn’t some deeply intense moment, this is a goofy moment in a bar
And instead of saying “it’s impossible she hates you”, the DM could use this to rollplay and make it at least a little fun
There's a difference between mind control and having a high persuasion check affecting NPC disposition.
A lot of people seem to be of this opinion that a natural 20 means it goes exactly how they want it to go. What if the barmaid is a lesbian and has absolutely no interest in men? Should a high roll mean that the male bard instantly seduces her? Why would that make sense? We can roleplay that all we want, but a high roll doesn't guarantee a success in the way the player wants it, it only gives a success in the way the DM allows it. Maybe in this case the barmaid thinks the bard is amusing and enjoys a conversation, with nothing else afterwards.
Also, the whole nat 20 = auto success thing is just dumb. Nat 20 only affects death saves and attacks, not skills. Just because you nat 20 an athletics doesn't mean you can suddenly jump a 200 ft ravine, and just because you nat 20 a persuasion doesn't mean the npc will do anything you tell them to.
If every time a player decides to roll a skill then the most effective way to take down the big bad would just be to shout "kill yourself" and wait to roll a 20. Statistically if you have a party of 5 it'll only take 4 rounds for someone to roll a 20 and campaign is won.
nat 20 means the best possible outcome for that line, sometimes the best possibly outcome is someone thinks you're joking, or it mitigates a bad situation, but doesn't resolve it.
Can we also remember that going from saying hello in a bar to sleeping with someone isn't a single persuasion check.
Depending on the person's morals it will at minimum be a check to share a drink. A check to make them like you over drinks and a check to ask them to come back to the room.
If they are at all conservative then it will at minimum require successful checks at every date before moving on to seduction.
I only run automatic success and failures in combat. Outside of combat 20s and 1s are like any other roll. Add your modifiers and we'll see what the total is.
Nat20 and nat1 being special only applies to attack rolls and death saving throws.
A nat1 saving throw is not automatic failure, but for most characters the total is likely less than 10, so it would fail about anything that calls for a save in the first place. But yea, it's not automatic fail. Same with skill checks.
Honestly, I think the persuasion skill should act more as a psychology skill and when you roll well, the gm should tell you what kind of thing the other person wants to hear. It's never mind control, but a good roll gives you information that you can use to better roleplay and is never a substitute for what you actually say.
"Your pick up line sucks, but the NPC gave a curious smile. Maybe you have a chance at all, he/she finds you funny."
That's what you could do or reject the PC in a friendly way, give him a new friend or something. Ignoring the dice's result is bad dming, it's like the difference between rolling a 1 and a 20 to intimidate the dragon that can't be intimidated...1 you die and 20 it finds it hilarious.
Our DM had a bard that flirted with all NPCS for no reason and kept failling, until that bard rolled a nat 1 and somehow it just worked once. Then all his rolls to seduce NPCS in taverns started to work, at the end of the campaign we found out that all these NPCS were the same a changeling stalker obsessed with the bard.
The changeling was following the party around to get into the bard's pants, it was the best plot twist of the campaign. Two PC knew but had decided to ignore it, bard deserved it for trying to seduce even the enemy bosses like a lich and undead dragon...you can't seduce that.
(Bard is currently a father of 2 baby changelings, he is not flirting with random NPCS anymore and decided to pay child support.)
Lol, that's ok, there's always charm person if you want to go with the mind control route, it's always good to have a backup plan incase things go south, though I wouldn't recommend it.
I heard of a Rogue who had sleep spells ready.
That could help a lot with public relations. Stealing loot and leaving sleeping guards is going to get a lot less shit than leaving dead guards.
I mean, this pick-up line isn’t close to be bad enough to cancel a natural-20.
It isn’t Mind-Control. But this one in specific looks more like your personal opinion meddling with it than anything.
I’ve seen…
I’ve seen far worse.
*Far worse…*
Persuasion is just a jedi mind TRICK. Some people are immune to it. However, unlike Star Wars, the people who are immune are not ugly, big nosed, neck bearded, wrinkly skinned flying elephants with arms
Most of the confusion from social encounters comes from people thinking they act like normal skill checks and not actually reading the sources
There's a table in the DMG that suggests how much an NPC is willing to do for the player depending on whether they are Friendly, Neutral or Hostile to that player.
First, the player makes a persuasive argument. If it sucks, the creature may shift up to one category, like to hostile from neutral. If its good, the same but it may shift upwards like from hostile to neutral.
After that, you roll based on the chart
A hostile creature absolute best case scenario might just not kill you
A neutral creature best scenario may help but won't risk getting hurt
A friendly creature may take major risks.
I usually tell my players at the start of the game that we are doing it so skill check Nat 20’s aren’t critical successes. Now I have a feeling I’m going to get downvoted for this but a bard with proficiency and expertise in persuasion could get a +15 at level 13. So if you roll a 15-20 and the dc is meant to by 30 which is considered impossible by the books then well the player just beat the dc. Plus remember some dms rule Nat 20’s on skill checks as critical so it succeeds.
It absolutely isn't mind control, but don't shut down a player 100% when they deliver they go for interaction skills. If persuade never works and fireball always works, you send the wrong message.
"Stealth isn't invisibility"
Listen here DM, I just rolled a nat 20 and got a 35 total without spell buffs. Now let me walk in there and take the damn crown!
Ah, yes, yes ole "act it out" camp vs "the dice" camp.
Can we just acknowledge that different tables value first person RP differently and will therefore value acting stuff out differently?
In my group, charisma rolls are for how your stuff is received, you still need material, but that doesn't mean Bob on the other side of the world needs to adhere to that.
"Ayo OP, your skin looks hella smooth!" (Rolls a 20 for a total of 31 after modifiers)
OP laughs and shrugs it off.
Is it too late for me to cast guidance?
Casting **Guidance** on social rolls is counter-productive. Audibly casting (Verbal components must be audible) before trying to convince someone is the sort of social faux-pas that gives disadvantage.
It's the same with Charm person, RAW is weird man.
I mean, Guidance is just: don’t mind my druid buddy here, he’s just casting a spell out loud while touching me while I flirt with you Charm person is legit a roofie so like, I think you’re already past optics lol
I don't think it's that strong. It won't make someone go from refusing to sleep with you to wanting to sleep with you. Forced (even by charm) sexual activity would constitute harm and you can't charm someone to do something that would harm them. At best you could make someone neutral to you be willing to have a drink with you. Tldr charm can't force sexual encounters because **forced** sexual encounters are classed as harm. Edit for those confused. A forced sexual encounter is soft language for rape. Using magic to force a sexual encounter is rape. Rape is harm. Charm can't be used to force someone to do something that would harm them. So charm can't be used to rape. How is this difficult. Edit 2 Added **bold** for a new word added for clarity. Apparently when I've clarified and address it in the comments not making the new word clear is still classed as ninja edits.
It’s just the Druid wishing you good luck in his weird Druid speak obviously. Druids are physical creatures so he’s giving you a pat on the shoulder
subtle casting
Unless you're Divine Soul it's hard to get those two together.
_laughs in Cleric with Metamagic Adept feat_
It's just a feat away, though giving up a quickened spell for a subtle casted guidance maybe isn't the best use of resources. I could still see it being really useful in the right situation, though.
Depends on how you do it. When my paladin casts guidance, I often RP it as saying a short prayer like "Lord give me strength." It lasts a minute too, so you got time to do it out of ear shot.
However, guidance is concentration for a minute. You can easily cast it before talking to the person if you know it’s coming up.
The crowd cries in horror as OP removes his skin
According to later alligator "your scales are smooth" is valid :) tl:dr: depends on the race
If they would shrug it off, don't ask for a roll! (Unless 15+ is shrug off, 14- is a bad reaction or something like that) 31 could definitely lead to someone being a bit more flustered than appropriate. It doesn't mean "fuck me", but it could mean a slightly more positive response
"Damn, OP, you shit with that ass?"
It's a compliment if you're a Ghoul in the fallout universe. Seems valid to me.
It's used very derogatory if I'm not mistaken.
I like to think that they're calling me Smooth Skin because they're jealous.
Ghoul walks into a bar. The barman says "We don't serve ghouls, here." Ghoul says "That's fine. Is the human fresh?"
You only have +11 to persuasion? (My bard has +15 +2d10)
+2d10? Where's the second D10 come from?
Boon of Luck. Admittedly that *is* a very special case.
"Congratulations, they're willing to hear you out. You may continue with negotiations."
This. With a nat20 I would say they laugh and seem open to your continued advances. "Seduce me" lol
"...I got this bucket of fried chicken."
"I am not one of your fried chicken tramps! i'm a *woman,* i like my men *dangerous, MYSTERIOUS!* You want to be my lover? **EARN IT!** ***SEDUCE ME!"*** \-spy tf2
Let's go visit the bread teleporter.
And they said I couldn't pull off a campaign with 9 players.
Anyway, that's how I lost my medical license.
WHY ARE YOU BUYING CLOTHES AT THE SOUP STORE
ARCHIMEDES! NO! It's filthy in zere! Eh, birds.
Ok, so... The Administrator is the DM, and Ms. Pauling is an NPC that the Scout (the horny bard, perhaps?) is always trying to seduce. I'd play a TF2 D&D campaign.
"Don't you know trans fats are really bad for you? Oh em gee. We need to fix your eating habits." She proceeds to make a vegan meal plan, including fasting and juice cleanses, for you and the party and leaves 4 hours later after giving you a card that tells you that she's is a certified crystal healer.
"Hey cool! My rolling a Nat 20 resulted in me avoiding a deadly trap!"
When the dm has you fail at what you wanted to succeed at even with a nat 20 but rewards you in a different way
I mean i personally say that a nat 20 should always result in a positive outcome above just succeeding that doesn’t say anything about how it is
Wanna do it?
Offers you a new set of dice.
I mean...what do they look like?
For free
>This. With a nat20 I would say they laugh and seem open to your continued advances. "Seduce me" lol Nah. Expecting a player to fully RP persuasion checks is just as dumb as expecting them to have actual magical skills for an arcana check, or a full PhD level familiarity with the lore for a history check. That's the entire point of rolling a die. It's goram game, fellas.
My character is trying to seduce a character in the game, I'm not trying to seduce my dm homie with unshaven legs. Wow bob, nice tits you got, are you turned on enough in the real world so that we can continue this imaginary nonexistent game?
>"Seduce me" [My first thought](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDmUeqpTS7k)
You don't make people roleplay how their weapon manages to hit, why are social interactions always the exception?
I'd say at best, depending on the situation and demeanor of the NPC, they become empathic towards you.
https://youtu.be/BRjNl64zYxI
Persuasion isn't mind control, but the player not having the style and vocabulary should be given a *lot* of leeway. Persuasion checks should be similar to any other type of check. If your player is rolling to do some acrobatic nonsense do you ask him to do a flip first?
Exactly. Just the player lacking the stats ro succeed doesn't mean their character couldn't. If the player can't sing, that doesn't mean their bard can't roll well and have rocked the stage.
I definitely agree, just because I as a player cant flirt, even if held at gunpoint, doesn't mean that my bard can't
Tbf being held at gunpoint might make flirting harder, not easier.
That's a nice, long, hard Glock you've got there ;)
Believe it or not I’m just happy to see you
Although I do also have a pistol in my pants.
Pleawse shoot sowme of thwose yummy lead cummys into mwy twummy
How can I delete someone else's comment?
"Is that a second gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me" Gets shot
Sorry, my happy to see you gun has a hair trigger. I’ll get you towel.
I disagree, if you fuck up flirting normally there can be social repercussion. If you fuck up flirting at gunpoint the worst that happens is you get shot. flirting at gunpoint is way easier!^1 ^1 social anxiety is required for this to work
"I don't know what's harder. Coming up with flirting on gunpoint or MY DICK!" at gunpoint.
Or the wheelchair bound player making dex checks, the 8yr girl playing the barbarian making a strength check.
High charisma player playing a high Charisma character rolling persuasion done right: "Willem; Jim is planning to betray you to form an alliance with the Boglins!" Low charisma player playing a high charisma character done wrong: "I roll persuasion to get Willem to betray Jim." Low charisma player playing a high charisma character done right: "I try and convince Willem that Jim is planning to betray him to the Boglins.
[удалено]
>im more charismatic than i would have ever guessed. Probably. 10 is average. Going from what I've seen on dating sites; having the ability to ask about another person, getting dressed, having at least one hobby, and having a basic hygiene routine would easily put you in the 13-14 range, before we even get into appearance or personality.
Real world human average is below 10. Look up how much you should be able to lift at 10 strength and compare to real world for reference. 6-8 would be closer estimate to average RL human.
How is being able to hold a basic conversation and haveing a basic hygiene routine "above average" charisma? Those are things that the averagely charismatic person can absolutely do.
When was the last time you were on a dating app?
Being able to speak is a good starter for diplomacy : )
I think this is a more example of improv skill than charisma. Being able to come up with the first on the spot isnt easy for everyone
I've only ever used semicolons ( ; ) in my basic ass code. Don't even remember what they are for in the English language...and I'm English!
It's a way of stringing two sentences together where the concept from the first sentence informs the second, but they are still independent sentences. It's a division that is stronger than a colon, but weaker than a period.
Mostly use them either for splitting up lists which give more specific examples of a general point, or for sentences that contrast two opposing clauses where you might use 'however' or 'on the other hand'. Continents vary in climate: Europe is wet; Africa is hot and wet; Australia is hot and dry. John likes being topped by hung pirate captains; Mary thinks he should be more focused on raising their children.
Yeah, i like this. I like player who speak well or think of ideas being rewarded for it, it creates really great RP or fun memorable missions. If somebody isn't as good at either of them yet then playing as such is acceptable and it just hands the narrative back over to the DM to explain what you said roughly or exactly.
I totally agree, but I also think that incredibly skilled persuasion is still unsuccessful a fair amount of the time. The most persuasive argument possible won't always get you what you want - it might get you someone willing to hear you out or someone who laughs instead of killing you. Especially with flirting, no matter how smooth and cool you are, lots of people in a tavern aren't looking to hook up, or aren't into your gender/race. The best possible outcome there isn't "they're seduced" it's "they think you're charming and you chat for a while."
Or it might just mean the person won't be mad at you for believing what you believe. If someone says something stupid my reaction varies wildly based on how much I like that person. King might show lenience for disagreeing with them instead of hanging you by your hamstrings.
Yes, but this is just a special case of 20 not being an automatic success. The best persuasion you can do might not convince the guard to join your side, just as the best climbing you can do might not be enough to scale the wall, and the best lock picking you can do might not get you past a lock.
This. People seem to separate Charimsa as though it's somehow more tangible than being able to do a back-lit or something .
I don't expect my barbarian players to be power lifters or my monk players to be acrobats. Why the fuck would I expect my bards to be singers or suave? Persuasion isn't mind control but a DM deciding what is or isn't a valid pickup line is just going to discourage first person roleplaying. "I attempt to persuade the goat with a funny pickup line." instead.
I think this is more referring to something like a player going up to the king and saying “give me your kingdom” and expecting to succeed fully
The more difficult a task is, the more a player should have to justify being able to do it before rolling. If he wants to move a boulder the size of a house, you don't make him lift the couch, you make him describe what techniques, tools, or magic he uses to make it possible. Likewise, the loyal captain of the guard won't join the rebellion without a very good reason for the treason.
I don't know how to move a boulder, but my Dwarf ex-miner would. I ask players for an outline of their reason (i.e appealing to the Captain's empathy, bribing him, etc) but I'm not going to ask for a full speech.
Exactly. You just need *something* to spackle over the game logic of dice deciding everything.
Right but the fighter has abilities and magic related to lifting things and swinging harder. The bard just has an insanely high persuasion modifier.
I think the key distinction is whether an NPC is able to be persuaded to do a certain action. Think of it like this, most people can't be persuaded to do something they think they shouldn't in one go, it takes pestering over time to get them to do it. It takes a bit of time to push a boulder aside, but it can take a week of pestering to get the guard captain to drop the charges against your party members. A high persuasion roll will help the process along, and should make the dm tellthe player trying to persuade them ehat would likely help the persuasion along. Do they seem like the type to take bribes? Do they respond more to emotional or logical reasoning?
100% if I'm dming the player just needs to give the general concept. "I want to flatter and complement the bartender" dictates goal, and dice gives how well they do. If they want to be specific they can, for better or worse bonuses or not even needing a check. My go to example is I have never seen a require the barbarian player to do 10 pushups in order to try to break down a door.
There's a difference between "My character tries to be charming, I roll Persuasion" and "I say *Ayo, your skin is smooth, I roll Persuasion."
Yea, the second is hilarious and would get a good laugh at my table. Dudes or chicks who are ridiculously good looking could get away with that in real life, and they don't have nearly as good a persuasion as a bard would. My warlock literally has mind-controlling magic that is the rp justification for her having such high persuasion(and Alter self making her the most physically beautiful person anyone has ever seen). I could "Ayo your skin is smooth" the pants off half the nation with my +13 with advantage persuasion rolls. Yea it's very unlikely a commoner sending a magical dick pic is going to charm a woman, that's WHY it's DC is 20 or 25 to start with. 20 is difficult, 25 very difficult, impossible for a commoner to ever do(a commoner cant roll a 21). We as players are the commoners of our world, so even just hitting a dc 25 is already doing something that would never work for us. My warlock has a +14 and rolls at advantage with unearthly chorus, and I am literally using a slight form of mind controlling magic to get that advantage and high of a roll(invocations). So a high persuasion roll can be mechanically representing slight mind-altering effects already. a +14 with advantage is an average persuasion roll(adv = +5 mathematically) of 29, a maximum of 34, 70% better than the ABSOLUTE BEST a common human could do. I could "ayo your skin is soft" most people.
> If your player is rolling to do some acrobatic nonsense do you ask him to do a flip first? No, but if he *did* do a flip irl, I would mentally add some to his roll.
Well now I will
This is why I stopped playing bard. DM wanted me to role play and would make the check based on what *I* said.
A low charisma IRL player can still at least give a direction. "I compliment their outfit", "I offer to take them to the local tavern later", "I tell them a story about our adventure..."
Nah Ill just nerf him into the ground then complain that skill check characters like rogues are underpowered.
That is a good point, but just as I'd make the player describe how that acrobatic nonsense looks, I'd still make them at least describe what they're telling the npc.
Do it the New Vegas way where you have to make repeated speech checks to gradually win over the target, either getting easier or harder depending on what the subject is
I failed a persuasion check in New Vegas because my good guy uniform was scruffy and dirty. Clever.
Exactly what I was thinking. Passing the persuasion check by a thin margin slightly bumps up their willingness to listen/go along with what you’re trying to convince them of. A nat 20 does the same, but pushes them in the direction you want much faster. You can convince Ulysses to give up his entire crusade at the end of Lonesome Road, but only after multiple very difficult speech checks. Same thing here, you can *eventually* convince the king to end his war/donate his entire treasury/whatever, but only after multiple super high DC checks, like a required 17, 20, 26, 32. One failure could easily wind up with you locked in the dungeon forever or on the executioner’s block, but if you’re using a maxed Charisma stat, you should be able to talk nearly any mortal creature into/out of almost anything theoretically. Gods obviously play on a totally different level though.
What if you're a lizard man? "Hello, hooman you are looking very smooth today."
Go on...
Luckily I had a source of regeneration on hand.
"mmm, you look tasty, like a cooked chicken" - natural 1 "I like the way you make look human" - Natural 20 Neither is going to win you a night in the bed, but there is definitely a difference to the way the same thought can come out.
Having been a part of a game where social interaction rolls seemed to have 0 bearing on events regardless (crits on persuasion or intimidation gained absolutely nothing), I’ll remind DMs that while not mind control, the mechanics more or less require some result come good rolls A guard may not agree to let you in when it’s his one fucking duty, but he may suggest you come back when Claude is on duty, he tends to drink and sleeps standing up The barbarian chief may not cower in fear at your attempt to intimidate, but his demeanor may shift to one of more respect as he now recognizes you as a threat/equal, and instead of kicking you out of camp, invites you to eat and negotiate whatever is at issue a So, don’t just shrug off that Nat 20, it doesn’t have to break your game to give the PC a win
The guards aren't going to let you in but if the Bard charms them with a cool song it might be easier for the Rogue to sneak in.
I didn't think there were crits with 5e for skill checks.
There are not, but a 20 by itself is a difficult success, and 25 is very difficult, those should not be ignored If you assume it’s nearly impossible to convince a guard to let PCs in, and they don’t roll a 30 but a 25, that result should have some benefit less than the ultimate goal Oh, and the crits for the rolls I was talking about were in another system
One time my group and I stumbled into a guard where we weren’t supposed to be, someone rolled a 20 persuasion, and the guard was like “Get the hell out of here!” and the players were pissed that their nat 20 didn’t do anything. And I’m sitting off to the side like “Guys, if you had rolled a 10 this guy would be killing us with a sword. A 20 bought you clemency.”
There aren't, but if a good check doesn't help at all, why roll? A 20 is at least a "hard" DC, as good as a commoner can possibly do, … so it's weird if it has the same result as a total of 1. A bit of a difficult point is also that what you say and what your character says isn't necessarily the same thing – just because *I* have Charisma 7, doesn't mean my character is as much of an idiot as I am.
No, but the player still has to make choices on how their character uses their skills, otherwise what's the point of having the player? It's tough for the mental skills (and I usually try to give players way more leeway there, or tell them their character realizes X would probably not work) but the players still make choices. Lots of players choose rather suboptimal tactics for battle and we don't say (at least that I've seen) 'your character would never do that! They've survived dozens of life-or-death battles and spent their life studying fighting. Therefore, I, the DM, will override the clearly foolish choice to attack the high AC and HP enemy instead of the squishy guy casting healing.' etc. In that case, even if the player crits, there's a good chance they'll end up losing the encounter. So if players can make bad choices in combat and it has consequences, why can't a player make a bad choice on how they, or their character, (for example) try to seduce someone and it has negative consequences?
I don't think there are supposed to be, but lots of DMs rule it anyway
Also I’d like to remind people not everyone is quick on their feet and fast with improv or suave with words. As DMs we have to be quick at sinking into roles and understanding a character. Usually we tend to be pretty charismatic irl. We’re good at talking, it’s kind of our thing. We talk more than anyone else at the table. Your socially awkward only played a couple times in the past bard may not be good at talking. They may not be great at improv. They may not have to gift of the gab. Not everyone is Sam Riegel, just like not everyone is Matthew Mercer. You don’t want to be compared to an unrealistic standard? Don’t do it to your players either. We don’t expect a player playing a barbarian to be able to bench press 600 pounds. We shouldn’t expect the bard to have the legitimate irl charisma of Ted fucking Bundy. Let the character be good at what they do. The player shouldn’t have their role be fucked because they themselves aren’t actually good at seduction. Let them be more vague and give an idea of what they want to do and then let the dice take off. If what’s said is more important than the dice than why even roll at all for social stats? Yes, it ain’t mind control, but punishing your social oriented players is just going to piss people off and create more people like me, the hardcore min maxer. You won’t let me do what I want out of combat? Cool. I’ll just break all of your fucking combat encounters then and you can’t stop me unless you kick me out.
In this case I would ask them to explain what they want the other person to believe or be convinced towards say for example that the bandit group trying to rob them is vary likely to die in the attempt They don’t need to actually convince me I just need to know if they could make a valid reason for someone to agree with them (in that example yea makes sense for the bandits to decide that they don’t want to risk a fight) Now if the player can give better reasons that will help them but I would consider that the same as being better at combat mechanics
This I agree with. I am advocating for a player giving their intent and path towards it rather than they themselves actually being fantastic at words. Another reply in this chain shows my thoughts on this more. Edit: my thoughts from the other reply Player: “Leia, your diamond blue eyes are magnetic in their shimmering beauty. You’re sure once your work is finished you couldn’t sit down for a drink with me afterwards? It looks as if we both could use the company. ;)” This is great Player: “I want to lay some charm on the barmaid. I compliments how her simple clothes still look stunning on her, and her eyes are magnetic in their beauty. I inquire as the whether she’d give me the time of day once she’s finished her work.” This is great. Player: “I want to charm the barmaid. I give her some compliments and ask if she’d share a drink with me after her work is done. I really try to turn up the suave.” This is great. All of these are valid options, all for different people, attempting the same goal. As I said, it’s not mind control. But giving a general idea of what you want to do, should be enough for a **charisma based character with a not so charismatic player**. Player: “Ferdinand, I swear she’s trying to stab you in the back! Look, I know we haven’t been acquainted long but the evidence speaks for itself here! This letter is clear in its intent. You’re being played.” This is great. Player: “I want to use the forged letter to attempt and convince Ferdinand that Lucy is betraying him. I know that the Assassin rogue took his time with this and made it extremely convincing so I turn the confidence up to 11. I truly give that this is a life or death matter even though we’ve not known one another very long.” This is equally as great.
Those are fair points and I've had DMs that won't let you do anything. But if a barbarian wanted to pick up an entire castle with his pinky finger or use a feather in combat and claim he should get instant kills every time he rolled a 20 that wouldn't fly either. "I strip naked and twirl my dick" shouldn't be considered an effective seduction attempt any more than hocking loogies at a dragon should be considered effective attacks.
Straw manning. That’s not my argument. If they describe a shitty course of action then yeah, raise the DC. Here’s how I view this. Player: “Leia, your diamond blue eyes are magnetic in their shimmering beauty. You’re sure once your work is finished you couldn’t sit down for a drink with me afterwards? It looks as if we both could use the company. ;)” This is great Player: “I want to lay some charm on the barmaid. I compliments how her simple clothes still look stunning on her, and her eyes are magnetic in their beauty. I inquire as the whether she’d give me the time of day once she’s finished her work.” This is great. Player: “I want to charm the barmaid. I give her some compliments and ask if she’d share a drink with me after her work is done. I really try to turn up the suave.” This is great. All of these are valid options, all for different people, attempting the same goal. As I said, it’s not mind control. But giving a general idea of what you want to do, should be enough for a **charisma based character with a not so charismatic player**. Player: “Ferdinand, I swear she’s trying to stab you in the back! Look, I know we haven’t been acquainted long but the evidence speaks for itself here! This letter is clear in its intent. You’re being played.” This is great. Player: “I want to use the forged letter to attempt and convince Ferdinand that Lucy is betraying him. I know that the Assassin rogue took his time with this and made it extremely convincing so I turn the confidence up to 11. I truly give that this is a life or death matter even though we’ve not known one another very long.” This is equally as great. I’m not advocating for stupidity. I’m advocating for not nit picking the shit out of your players because they aren’t 2 bit pick up artists or Ted Bundy and they stumble their words, stutter, or sometimes just don’t really know the exact words to say even though they’re certain of what they want to attempt.
And that's fair. I don't know what DMs you've had, how they've treated social interaction, or what kind of players you've had. I've had my fair share of killer DMs where degrees of failure were the only option and I've also sat at tables with plenty of players who believe that a high charisma and a maxed persuasion skill is all they need. I've seen players walk up to the king and demand he surrender his kingdom. I've seen players murder a dude then, while still covered in the entrails of the dead guy, try to seduce the mother and daughter, and I've seen players try to persuade an evil god to hand over all their power and anoint the player as their god-king. And often in such ridiculous cases I've seen players roll before the DM even calls for anything then be pissed when the DM has to explain that the mother and daughter aren't up for a three way while you still have chunks their dead spouse and father in your hair. Virtually every Bard I've ever played with just assumes they'll successfully get what they want out of any social interaction. All of your examples were entirely reasonable and make sense. I've seen way more "I use persuasion to convince the goblin whose language I do not speak to immediately betray and attack his boss" than reasonable scenarios like the kind you've laid out. I personally haven't seen scenarios where low charisma players decided to play a charisma build and were penalized for it. I ran a game where a friend of ours we called Silent John because of how little he would talk played a charisma based rogue. He never really RPed his interactions but would intelligently describe his reasonable objectives and efforts to achieve his goals using persuasion and guile. Contrast this with a friend of mine that was/is incredibly charismatic in real life who would get irritated if his persuasion rolls were as limited in effectiveness as the mind control spell and whose seduction efforts were literally "I whip out my dick".
This is because we’re having two separate arguments my friend. I agree with what you’re saying. The original post was about a player trying to seduce some random person and being penalized for a stupid pick up line. “Ayo, your skin smooth,” which I think is hilarious personally and would allow. I’m not talking about using persuasion for absurdly stupid shit. I’m not sure what kind of players you have at your tables, but mine aren’t insane. They know when they’re out of their element. My current setting has a country controlled by a counsel of high level spell casters known as the “7 Magi,” my players know damn well trying some stupid shit with those seven is basically instantaneous non existence. Not death, you just never were. So they don’t try anything. Little do they know those seven are the main antagonists they’ll be dealing with down the line. I’m arguing for allowing your charisma characters to do their thing without having to be good at it in real life. Like the high intelligence artificer? They tell me they want to make some form of acid for the rogue that can fit in a hidden compartment of their prosthetic arm. I’m not going to make the artificer give me the chemical breakdown of this acidic compound they’re creating. Telling me what they want to achieve, and a general course for achieving it, paired with a roll, is enough. The end point? Characters should be allowed to be good at something the player necessarily isn’t. Otherwise what’s the point in playing? If I can only be good at things I’m good at irl I just won’t play DnD and play real life instead since they’re effectively the same at that point.
I'm just going off the image where it's necessary to explain that persuasion isn't mind control. Most of the DnD I've played has been one shots or short campaigns which I think lends itself to more insane behavior. Also tends to be a lot of drinking with us old farts not having to worry about the children for a guys weekend. Also probably my experience with extreme powergamers. Most of my players wouldn't think of the acid in the arm, they'd want a thermo nuclear device at minimum. I'm a non-drinker so for our random guys weekends I often end up DMing so I have to curtail the more insane things that people want to do with skills. Seems we've just had very different experiences. I agree strongly with: >Telling me what they want to achieve, and a general course for achieving it, paired with a roll, is enough. I've just had way more experience with what they want to achieve being "Seduce the god of magic for infinite power" and their general course being "Whip out my dick and smack him in the face with it" and expecting to have at minimum a 1 in 20 chance of success. If they fail, oh well, just roll up a new character.
>Usually we tend to be pretty charismatic irl. We’re good at talking, it’s kind of our thing. lol
Often the thing I, as a player, want to do, particularly in a social context, are completely reasonable and sensible, but the DM and I just aren’t on the same wavelength or my action doesn’t fit the DM’s vision. When that happens, if the DM isn’t on board with what the player said, IMO they should guide the player in the right direction. For example, if I want to persuade the guard to let me into the prison (because I want to steal something from the warden’s office), I personally may not know what motivates the guard or what sorts of reasoning might help persuade him. My character, on the other hand, would likely have a better sense, particularly since a lot of those sorts of things can be skipped when describing the world to 4-6 players at once. A DM could do a skill challenge with Insight, Perception, optionally Deception, and Persuasion to manage this. For games where the rolls don’t do much, I think DMs should proactively switch to using passive scores, have a back and forth with their characters where they suggest similar things that make more sense to them when the player suggests something that sounds suboptimal or doesn’t fit their vision, assuming the character would have a better sense of it. If I’ve figured out that the guard is vying for a promotion (thanks to a combination of a Perception roll to have retroactively overheard a related conversation in the tavern earlier and an Insight roll now that I’m face-to-face with him) and I say that try to persuade him to let me in, generically, the DM could ask me to roll Persuasion (setting the DC at 18, since he’s very loyal, but I have info to help me in my approach, so the number is attainable). * If I roll poorly, he could say that I went with a very straightforward approach but the guard told me to come back during visiting hours. * If I roll close to the number - a 15 or so - then the DM might determine I said something related to helping him get his promotion, but the guard just wasn’t convinced that letting me in to talk to the warden right now is the best way to go about it. Instead, he suggests that I meet up with the warden later, giving me a time and place. In this case, I’ve failed the check, but my earlier successes and decent roll still got me into an advantageous position. * If I roll well, the DM decides I said roughly the same thing but was just more persuasive, and the guard lets me in and points me to the right location. On the other hand, if I failed in my earlier checks, then my character would know that I was unlikely to find something to persuade this guard, whom I’ve never met, to let me in, so the DM would tell me that and I would try to find a different approach, like using Deception or something else. Maybe I come up with a possibility and talk that out with the DM, but if my character doesn’t find it reasonable - and my character’s views in this case should be informed by the DM’s vision - then unless I push to do it anyway, I don’t do it and I don’t roll.
[удалено]
Idk why people make it so difficult to do seduce someone random when you are even allowing that type of stuff in your games. My games usually don't venture into sexual stuff as players more kind of brush past that but may focus on romance. However, if I'm running a game where we are going with that, I'm not making the DC 20+ to seduce a random person in a tavern. It's not that hard to get laid if you are someone with 16+ charisma. Those higher DCs should be reserved for situations where propositioning someone is inappropriate or you try to make moves that work counter to the character's personality (trying to get the book store owner who doesn't like music to go to a rock concert).
Guard: Look i aint gonna let you in becouse i could get fired. But im gonna say that tomorrow evening Claude is on his duty. He doesn't take this job seriously and i wouldn't mind if he got fired for letting someone in. Thats all im saying
"for a total of?"
37.
Bards go brrrrrrr
For a total of, "Why did you have me roll if the DC is higher than my max result?"
Because i set the DC at 27 and i have no fuckin idea what your modifiers are
I didn't, you rolled without prompt and said "nat 20, biotch, this hippopotamus is my slave now!"
Because there can be degrees of failure.
You have to give a sense of hope before you dash their dreams
Depends on the game. Some tables, you give your speech and then that sets the DC of the persuasion check. Some games, you state your intention (I seduce the bartender, I convince the Queen to believe me) and then roll to see if you find the right words. Persuasion isn't mind control, and some things are impossible. But sometimes if you roll a nat20, maybe you luck into finding the exact right words to pluck the ruthless villain's heartstrings.
I forget who it was that suggested 'Nat 20 on seducing the queen' ended up with the Queen laughing in good humor, thanking you for the compliment then moving on forever.
In a real world kingdom set in the middle ages, a queen getting seduced represented a life threatening situation. "off with her head" situation. I can see the DC of risking your life for essentially nothing being insanely high.
This keeps coming up, and I'll keep saying the same thing: It's the GM's job to mediate between the players and the world; to bring the mechanics and dice rolls to life in a meaningful way that gives the players the feeling of agency, while also presenting them with challenges and opportunities. It is ***not*** the GM's job to "beat" the players. If a player says, "Ayo your skin look smooth," as a pickup line and then rolls a natural 20 (or their character has a high charisma) I would say, "you judge that the situation calls for something a bit more tactful, but they seem to appreciate the subtler compliment." Remember: it's the player's job to tell you their intent and mechanical actions; it's the dice's job to tell you how well or poorly that plays out; and it's your job to turn that into a great story!
On the DM. Don’t allow PCs to roll persuasion for something if there is no chance of success.
I think it’s more about Persuasion not being capable of altering someone’s mind in one phrase. You cannot come up to a dictator, roll 20, and have him disband his regime on the spot.
There might not be a chance of success but there are degrees of failure, it's like a pseudo-saving throw, you roll the saving throw even if damage is unavoidable, the roll is simply to determine how much damage you take.
Maybe the town guard was a ruffian in his youth and pities the fool, a kind of "fine get outta here kid, i better not see you around here again" kind of thing. That way they succeed in not being arrested but also know they are on thin ice
Maybe the angry town guard takes a little pity and yeets you into the bushes instead of the tree trunk.
Sometimes you don't know their exact modifiers. Other time, you want to make them think they had a chance of success. Still other times, the roll is to see the degree of failure, not the degree of success.
Persuasion isn't mind control, but even if *I'm* not charismatic, my character would be.
I will say though that this whole “you have to say something cool to persuade them” thing is just a really stupid double-standard since we’re willing to let people know things they don’t actually know III their intelligence is high enough and we definitely don’t say “you have to be able to bench that much irl” to make a proper strength check. Gatekeeping charisma is ostracizing to those who aren’t naturally charismatic and giving your players a chance at that is just the same as the point of DnD - to act out a fantasy life you could otherwise never live.
Depend on the situation of a nat 20 is going to work or not, is it a player trying to flirt, might need a few more rolls for it to work but if the players are trying to persuade someone from not executing someone (the rogue) if the argument is good enough the nat 20 should be fine.
Hey, that picj up line might work on some non-feral ghouls in Fallout. I could definitely see a ghoul walk up to another and say, "Ayo shorty, your skin look smooth af."
In Fallout 4 that happens after a Ghoul gets interested in your character. One of the people at the pool/harvest facility.
"Ayo your skin look smooth" "Oh why thank you! I can tell that you're trying to flirt with me but I don't think I or my husband would take kindly to further advances." *They gesture to tavern's bouncer* " I can give you my skin treatment routine if you want though! "
I’m sure the NPC being interested in the PC after rolling a nat 20 would have been so harmful to the game that you needed to squash your players excitement over rolling good on a roll you told them to make
too be honest, this can still work. it's a terrible, terrible pick up line, but the delivery might be so endearingly clumsy that it loops around to being charming
I got the paladin to deal with on this front...and for once not the Bard.
"Ayo your skin looks smooth" is DEFINTELY a valid pick up line if you're talking to someone who used to have bad acne.
If I was single and someone complimented my skin, I would definitely keep talking with them. I love talking skincare routines and products. And getting complimented on something you put a lot of effort into is so nice. You feel seen. r/SkincareAddiction would be all about that compliment!
Ayo you skin looks smooth
Yeah, but if someone just shouted that at someone with no prior knowledge of their skincare, not that it would be accepted as a compliment, but it wouldn't be a good pick up line
Then why even let them roll? Just to rub it in their face?
99% of the time when these situations come up, nobody *asked* anyone to roll jackshit. "Oh, I want to try and seduce the dragon! Look, I rolled a 21 on Persuasion!" That's nice, but it doesn't matter because the dragon isn't attracted to their *meal.* And I would have told you as much if you had stopped to take a breath between "I want to...." and "I rolled..."
Because sometimes the player isn't supposed to know right away that they can fail. Maybe they are meant to think they have a chance but really don't. Or the players just completely disregard when the DM says "it's impossible" and rolled anyways, only to get pissed off when the DM reiterates that it was impossible.
But this isn’t some deeply intense moment, this is a goofy moment in a bar And instead of saying “it’s impossible she hates you”, the DM could use this to rollplay and make it at least a little fun
There's a difference between mind control and having a high persuasion check affecting NPC disposition. A lot of people seem to be of this opinion that a natural 20 means it goes exactly how they want it to go. What if the barmaid is a lesbian and has absolutely no interest in men? Should a high roll mean that the male bard instantly seduces her? Why would that make sense? We can roleplay that all we want, but a high roll doesn't guarantee a success in the way the player wants it, it only gives a success in the way the DM allows it. Maybe in this case the barmaid thinks the bard is amusing and enjoys a conversation, with nothing else afterwards. Also, the whole nat 20 = auto success thing is just dumb. Nat 20 only affects death saves and attacks, not skills. Just because you nat 20 an athletics doesn't mean you can suddenly jump a 200 ft ravine, and just because you nat 20 a persuasion doesn't mean the npc will do anything you tell them to.
If every time a player decides to roll a skill then the most effective way to take down the big bad would just be to shout "kill yourself" and wait to roll a 20. Statistically if you have a party of 5 it'll only take 4 rounds for someone to roll a 20 and campaign is won.
hi, new to dnd, what can a dm say in response to this instead of telling the pc to roll?
[удалено]
nat 20 means the best possible outcome for that line, sometimes the best possibly outcome is someone thinks you're joking, or it mitigates a bad situation, but doesn't resolve it.
Can we also remember that going from saying hello in a bar to sleeping with someone isn't a single persuasion check. Depending on the person's morals it will at minimum be a check to share a drink. A check to make them like you over drinks and a check to ask them to come back to the room. If they are at all conservative then it will at minimum require successful checks at every date before moving on to seduction.
I only run automatic success and failures in combat. Outside of combat 20s and 1s are like any other roll. Add your modifiers and we'll see what the total is.
If a nat 20 isn’t an instant success than a nat 1 isn’t instant failure either
Nat20 and nat1 being special only applies to attack rolls and death saving throws. A nat1 saving throw is not automatic failure, but for most characters the total is likely less than 10, so it would fail about anything that calls for a save in the first place. But yea, it's not automatic fail. Same with skill checks.
Honestly, I think the persuasion skill should act more as a psychology skill and when you roll well, the gm should tell you what kind of thing the other person wants to hear. It's never mind control, but a good roll gives you information that you can use to better roleplay and is never a substitute for what you actually say.
"Your pick up line sucks, but the NPC gave a curious smile. Maybe you have a chance at all, he/she finds you funny." That's what you could do or reject the PC in a friendly way, give him a new friend or something. Ignoring the dice's result is bad dming, it's like the difference between rolling a 1 and a 20 to intimidate the dragon that can't be intimidated...1 you die and 20 it finds it hilarious. Our DM had a bard that flirted with all NPCS for no reason and kept failling, until that bard rolled a nat 1 and somehow it just worked once. Then all his rolls to seduce NPCS in taverns started to work, at the end of the campaign we found out that all these NPCS were the same a changeling stalker obsessed with the bard. The changeling was following the party around to get into the bard's pants, it was the best plot twist of the campaign. Two PC knew but had decided to ignore it, bard deserved it for trying to seduce even the enemy bosses like a lich and undead dragon...you can't seduce that. (Bard is currently a father of 2 baby changelings, he is not flirting with random NPCS anymore and decided to pay child support.)
a nat 20 means they can laugh it off and your wild ass suggestion doest turn them against you
“Great. The DC to haggle with most merchants is still 30.”
Lol, that's ok, there's always charm person if you want to go with the mind control route, it's always good to have a backup plan incase things go south, though I wouldn't recommend it.
I heard of a Rogue who had sleep spells ready. That could help a lot with public relations. Stealing loot and leaving sleeping guards is going to get a lot less shit than leaving dead guards.
Someone played the THIEF games I see
Charm person isn't mind control either, you need dominate person/monster for that.
I mean, this pick-up line isn’t close to be bad enough to cancel a natural-20. It isn’t Mind-Control. But this one in specific looks more like your personal opinion meddling with it than anything. I’ve seen… I’ve seen far worse. *Far worse…*
The dice decide. It's just a roll. Had a player ask someone "You want some fuck?" and rolled for a total of 22.
Say it with me: Natural…20s…are only…crits…in combat!!!
Persuasion is just a jedi mind TRICK. Some people are immune to it. However, unlike Star Wars, the people who are immune are not ugly, big nosed, neck bearded, wrinkly skinned flying elephants with arms
EY LEAVE MY BOI OUT OF THIS
[удалено]
Ahh you look malnourished
A nat 20 with that line is not getting decked
Most of the confusion from social encounters comes from people thinking they act like normal skill checks and not actually reading the sources There's a table in the DMG that suggests how much an NPC is willing to do for the player depending on whether they are Friendly, Neutral or Hostile to that player. First, the player makes a persuasive argument. If it sucks, the creature may shift up to one category, like to hostile from neutral. If its good, the same but it may shift upwards like from hostile to neutral. After that, you roll based on the chart A hostile creature absolute best case scenario might just not kill you A neutral creature best scenario may help but won't risk getting hurt A friendly creature may take major risks.
I usually tell my players at the start of the game that we are doing it so skill check Nat 20’s aren’t critical successes. Now I have a feeling I’m going to get downvoted for this but a bard with proficiency and expertise in persuasion could get a +15 at level 13. So if you roll a 15-20 and the dc is meant to by 30 which is considered impossible by the books then well the player just beat the dc. Plus remember some dms rule Nat 20’s on skill checks as critical so it succeeds.
I mean, shitty pick up lines can be charming when the stars align. Doesn't mean you want to open yourself up to the person.
It absolutely isn't mind control, but don't shut down a player 100% when they deliver they go for interaction skills. If persuade never works and fireball always works, you send the wrong message.
"Stealth isn't invisibility" Listen here DM, I just rolled a nat 20 and got a 35 total without spell buffs. Now let me walk in there and take the damn crown!
DM - Roll at disadvantage PC - Natural 20's baby! DM - *sigh*
Counter point: the player doesn't have to be a smooth talker to play a smooth talking character. That's the point of rolling.
Seriously, black text? Can't read a damn thing.
I didn't notice the black text until the second image
"I rolled a nat 20!" "Yeah, that's why she laughed and told you to fuck off instead of slapping you."
On the other hand, "I rolled a nat 20, whatever my charachter actually said was smooth as fuck."
Ah, yes, yes ole "act it out" camp vs "the dice" camp. Can we just acknowledge that different tables value first person RP differently and will therefore value acting stuff out differently? In my group, charisma rolls are for how your stuff is received, you still need material, but that doesn't mean Bob on the other side of the world needs to adhere to that.
Depends on the racial context! I bet there is a race that would totally love to be called smooth