Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Also charm person can work on people who are hostile, which is the major benefit of it - if friends worked on hostile creatures, it would serve a purpose, even with the ridiculous hostility clause.
D&D 5E Does the "Friends" cantrip need a fix?
[MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION]
There is no where in the game that says a bartering has the time or multiple check requirements that you suggest. You add it, I assume, because it fits your idea of 'realism.' I guess what I am saying is that when a system mechanic seems to conflict with my idea realism (not system), especially when a player's ability is in question, I try to adjust my reality (again, not system) to create a satisfactory and balanced effect for the player. As a famous quote goes "My right to swing my fist, stops at another man's nose." I as a dm feel the same about the 'reality' of my game world, in that my ideas should have a natural limit, the point when they needless diminish the capability of the players in interacting within it.
In the same context my 'realistic' view could also grant exceptional power from skills like persuasion, because I can site historical instances where con men conned kings out of their entire fortune, but a reality like this isn't balanced for the players. A reality where the enemies are all ranged flyers obviously weakens the great weapon fighter. My point is arbitrariness of choice. Choose players, then 'reality', not 'reality' then players.
There is no where in the game that says a bartering has the time or multiple check requirements that you suggest. You add it, I assume, because it fits your idea of 'realism.' I guess what I am saying is that when a system mechanic seems to conflict with my idea realism (not system), especially when a player's ability is in question, I try to adjust my reality (again, not system) to create a satisfactory and balanced effect for the player. As a famous quote goes "My right to swing my fist, stops at another man's nose." I as a dm feel the same about the 'reality' of my game world, in that my ideas should have a natural limit, the point when they needless diminish the capability of the players in interacting within it.
In the same context my 'realistic' view could also grant exceptional power from skills like persuasion, because I can site historical instances where con men conned kings out of their entire fortune, but a reality like this isn't balanced for the players. A reality where the enemies are all ranged flyers obviously weakens the great weapon fighter. My point is arbitrariness of choice. Choose players, then 'reality', not 'reality' then players.
Notice I said "most likely." Never said it was all people.
Yep. That, and the time duration, are the major reasons why Charm Person is sometimes better than Friends.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
[MENTION=6794539]zago[/MENTION] - there's nowhere in the game that says that gravity exists, but you still play the game as though it does, unless something specifically contradicts it.
Convincing someone of something that they don't already agree to rarely takes less than a minute.
Your realistic view that grants exceptional power from persuasion exists in the game - it's purely up to the DM whether a character can con a king out of his kingdom. I'd also be interested in more details of your historical instance.
Convincing someone of something that they don't already agree to rarely takes less than a minute.
Your realistic view that grants exceptional power from persuasion exists in the game - it's purely up to the DM whether a character can con a king out of his kingdom. I'd also be interested in more details of your historical instance.
keterys
First Post
For clarity, I'm not suggesting that bartering has multiple check requirements. In truth, I wouldn't do checks for bartering, because it's not a facet of the game I care about, and not a facet of the game that I think _anyone_ should care about, especially at the expense of table time.
The point was more that a conversation that involved talking to a merchant, getting an item, finding out the price, and then bargaining that price, I'd call for a single persuasion check at some point during the conversation, and not explicitly at a particular statement or sentence. YMMV.
In general, I'm not a big fan of either cantrip - Friends or Guidance, and think they warp things a bit, but at least Guidance is truly effective. Friends does nothing you can't already do with a friend, and does it worse. It also happens to be the topic of the discussion.
With the exception of guidance (which in my opinion is a little too good) and damage causing cantrips, all other cantrips are very limited or subject to a lot of situational adjudication by the dm. Minor Illusion, Thaumaturgy, Dancing lights, and prestidigitation only have mechanically equitable effects if the DM basically invents them. Light can be replaced by a torch. True strike costs an action, thus rarely more equitable then just 2 attacks. Message in most situations can be accomplished with hand signals. Mending, situationally useful since there are no basic rules for items breaking through regular use.
What cantrips aside from damage causing and guidance are measurably better then friends?
When I look at cantrips, I think two general roles are being fielded in the design; basic at will weapons for casters, and minor magical abilities that are designed to advance the gestalt feel of 'magic' to the player. Where the light cantrip allows me to have light without a torch, friends allows me advantage to a cha checks without a friend. Had friends granted adv without a possible consequence (hostility) it would be (like guidance) too good as compared to other cantrips, and possibly grant charachters without a charisma focus a commensurate capability as those who do specialize in charisma (and that would be bad design).
What cantrips aside from damage causing and guidance are measurably better then friends?
When I look at cantrips, I think two general roles are being fielded in the design; basic at will weapons for casters, and minor magical abilities that are designed to advance the gestalt feel of 'magic' to the player. Where the light cantrip allows me to have light without a torch, friends allows me advantage to a cha checks without a friend. Had friends granted adv without a possible consequence (hostility) it would be (like guidance) too good as compared to other cantrips, and possibly grant charachters without a charisma focus a commensurate capability as those who do specialize in charisma (and that would be bad design).
My Warlock tends to use Friends to get advantage on intimidation checks. Not friendly at all. If I succeed I don't care if they are hostile towards me, as long as they are too cowered to do anything about it. It is great for bullying folks.
My Eldritch Knight (variant, illusion and enchantment schools) uses it to taunt folks. He insults them with advantage to provoke their attention to stay on him. The rider effect works to help in this regard.
A PC in my game had a great use for it, he said to the local lord "You advisor is magically influencing you to control you, he can make you hate people irrationally, he is making you paranoid and turning against people who are here to help you" with advantage, the lord started to believe them. Then he suddenly felt that they were magically manipulating his mind and wanted to have them killed...which gave them advantage on their rolls to convince him of the deception, due to his sudden mood change. He could feel the 'advisors' magical influence convincing him that other people were out to control him.
My Eldritch Knight (variant, illusion and enchantment schools) uses it to taunt folks. He insults them with advantage to provoke their attention to stay on him. The rider effect works to help in this regard.
A PC in my game had a great use for it, he said to the local lord "You advisor is magically influencing you to control you, he can make you hate people irrationally, he is making you paranoid and turning against people who are here to help you" with advantage, the lord started to believe them. Then he suddenly felt that they were magically manipulating his mind and wanted to have them killed...which gave them advantage on their rolls to convince him of the deception, due to his sudden mood change. He could feel the 'advisors' magical influence convincing him that other people were out to control him.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
* Mending is valuable to anyone with a sense of charity. I have an Urchin paladin/sorcerer who spends his occasional downtime entertaining street kids with sleight-of-hand (he's only got DX 10 but +3 from prof is good enough to fool kids) and mending old shoes and clothing with Mending.
* Situational, but: recent experience has taught me that Message is surprisingly good for stealthy parties hunting drow, since there aren't many other ways for your advance scout to communicate back "hostiles up ahead" through the darkness without alerting the hostiles and thus losing your surprise round. If the Message caster is 120' behind with the rest of the party, the enemy can't even hear the scout talking, since the message is audible only to the Message caster. Hand signals won't work BTW because 120' is beyond darkvision range, and if you stay only 60' ahead, your scout won't do you much good because drow will see the main party before your scout sees them.
* Similarly, I've really started to wish lately that my party's scout knew Dancing Lights, because while "hold the torch and chase after the drow so the archers can bombard them from range" works, it gets old fast. With Dancing Lights, we'd be able to turn the tables and safely bombard them with longbows from (just) beyond handcrossbow range/drow darkvision range. 60' Darkvision is nice, but it isn't really a substitute for actual light sources in combat.
I agree that True Strike is terrible though. (Negating disadvantage can be worth more than a second attack, but there are better ways to negate, e.g. Help action. And the range limitation is a killer.)
Unwise said:
This is why I am sad to learn/be reminded that Friends doesn't work on hostiles. You can't use it to taunt in combat.
Not quite legal by RAW, but surely RAI, and pure gold. I love it.
Last edited:
[MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]
Yikes. I guess I don't understand. Fundamentally the charisma check shouldn't allow someone to convince someone of something they wouldn't do. Advantage on a Charisma check grants a small bonus to what is a 'possible' check. Getting an item for 25-33% off is an example of what I would suggest is a possible check. Getting an item for free isn't.
As far as how long it takes: Maybe I spend an hour calmly haggling with a merchant, I say to him this is my last offer and if he doesn't accept right now, I will leave. I cast friends, we contest, I win (let's say) he relents, coin is already on the table, and I walk away a 15g longsword for which I paid only 10g. Now I have about 50 seconds to disappear in a crowd.
I don't see this as exceptional at all.
I also don't understand how this somehow cracks at the realism of anyone's world.
I also don't understand why anyone would look at this cantrip and think, holy cow, this doesn't work and has no use, because every social exchange in my world requires a lot of time.
My point about the king is to suggest that their are instances of exceptional 'cons' in the real world, but a mandate for such power is likely unbalancing in the game world. It would be bad if one skill or ability could grant an exponential wealth gap between players, regardless of whether the concept itself fits with in the paradigm of your world or not.
To be what I think is more clear, in a world where Disguise Self exists why wouldn't everyone physically touch someone before they make any deal, allow any entrance, etc... But of course if we insert such 'realism' to the game we greatly inhibit the basic abilities of the players. In the real world, one person with disguise self would be incredibly powerful, on a scale that is difficult to imagine. He could be the head of a state by dinner time. But in D&D it's a first level spell.
Don't ask yourself if Friends 'Works' in your world, ask yourself how your world can work such that friends is a cantrip commensurate power as other cantrips.
Yikes. I guess I don't understand. Fundamentally the charisma check shouldn't allow someone to convince someone of something they wouldn't do. Advantage on a Charisma check grants a small bonus to what is a 'possible' check. Getting an item for 25-33% off is an example of what I would suggest is a possible check. Getting an item for free isn't.
As far as how long it takes: Maybe I spend an hour calmly haggling with a merchant, I say to him this is my last offer and if he doesn't accept right now, I will leave. I cast friends, we contest, I win (let's say) he relents, coin is already on the table, and I walk away a 15g longsword for which I paid only 10g. Now I have about 50 seconds to disappear in a crowd.
I don't see this as exceptional at all.
I also don't understand how this somehow cracks at the realism of anyone's world.
I also don't understand why anyone would look at this cantrip and think, holy cow, this doesn't work and has no use, because every social exchange in my world requires a lot of time.
My point about the king is to suggest that their are instances of exceptional 'cons' in the real world, but a mandate for such power is likely unbalancing in the game world. It would be bad if one skill or ability could grant an exponential wealth gap between players, regardless of whether the concept itself fits with in the paradigm of your world or not.
To be what I think is more clear, in a world where Disguise Self exists why wouldn't everyone physically touch someone before they make any deal, allow any entrance, etc... But of course if we insert such 'realism' to the game we greatly inhibit the basic abilities of the players. In the real world, one person with disguise self would be incredibly powerful, on a scale that is difficult to imagine. He could be the head of a state by dinner time. But in D&D it's a first level spell.
Don't ask yourself if Friends 'Works' in your world, ask yourself how your world can work such that friends is a cantrip commensurate power as other cantrips.
[MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]
I think, non-combat cantrips are by design, weak (and quite fairly might I add). Looking squarely at guidance (as an example of cantrip that wasn't well balanced). We eventually house ruled a fair amount of "logical" limitations to it's use, to prevent it from acting as a constant d4 bonus to every skill being rolled by a cleric in one group and a druid in another (a situation where a skilled character was performing worse on checks than a unskilled cleric with guidance, can cause some resentment).
I think the design for pretty much the rest are meant to be somewhat limited. Its the reason why many aren't well defined. Can I intimidate with Thamaturgy? DM's decision. Can I scare an opponent away with minor illusion? DM decision. This is seemingly purposeful, because raw redundant mechanical benefits can become taxing to the game play (like guidance). I love message btw, but again my impression of cantrips is they are meant to be mediocre (magical) options when a perfect solution isn't present or you want to save more effective spell resources.
Here is an important point. Friends is fun. Friends creates an exciting moment out of something that is frequently mechanically lame. Friends is a player initiated DM opportunity for shenanigans. You conned that merchant into selling that item for less, and later that night while your eating dinner he walks into the tavern sits next to his old friend the barkeep, belly aching over how he was swindled out of 5g from a lowlife wizard....
..Or just when the party returns to Phandolin after routing the rebrands, and whilst hearing the praises from the villagers, one quite elderly man with a butcher knife held high cries out THEIF! and charges towards the wizard (who is currently held aloft on the shoulders of two stunned villagers)...
How can anyone hate this cantrip?
I think, non-combat cantrips are by design, weak (and quite fairly might I add). Looking squarely at guidance (as an example of cantrip that wasn't well balanced). We eventually house ruled a fair amount of "logical" limitations to it's use, to prevent it from acting as a constant d4 bonus to every skill being rolled by a cleric in one group and a druid in another (a situation where a skilled character was performing worse on checks than a unskilled cleric with guidance, can cause some resentment).
I think the design for pretty much the rest are meant to be somewhat limited. Its the reason why many aren't well defined. Can I intimidate with Thamaturgy? DM's decision. Can I scare an opponent away with minor illusion? DM decision. This is seemingly purposeful, because raw redundant mechanical benefits can become taxing to the game play (like guidance). I love message btw, but again my impression of cantrips is they are meant to be mediocre (magical) options when a perfect solution isn't present or you want to save more effective spell resources.
Here is an important point. Friends is fun. Friends creates an exciting moment out of something that is frequently mechanically lame. Friends is a player initiated DM opportunity for shenanigans. You conned that merchant into selling that item for less, and later that night while your eating dinner he walks into the tavern sits next to his old friend the barkeep, belly aching over how he was swindled out of 5g from a lowlife wizard....
..Or just when the party returns to Phandolin after routing the rebrands, and whilst hearing the praises from the villagers, one quite elderly man with a butcher knife held high cries out THEIF! and charges towards the wizard (who is currently held aloft on the shoulders of two stunned villagers)...
How can anyone hate this cantrip?
Similar Threads
