D&D 5E Social Combat Rules for 5E

I wonder if something like this would have made skill challenges more palatable back during 4E. I definitely like the idea of it, but I wonder if the added complexity of "social HP" are better than simply tallying Successes vs. Failures (especially if you allow people to aid without risk of racking up failures, for those who feel out of their element, but so they still feel safe contributing).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

IMHO, just thinking of an interaction-pillar resolution system as 'Social Combat' sets you up to fail. Yes, to play like the historically better-developed/more-granular combat system of D&D, any sort of social interaction system is going to need more detail, moving parts, and the like, to the tune of what combat has generally, but a 1:1 correlation, lampshaded with terms like 'social defense,' is innately questionable.

That said, I've been prey to the impulse, myself, almost since I started playing the game. Even when I barely grasped it, the gap in coverage was obvious among combat (with all classes able to do it), exploration (largely the province of the Thief, obviated here and there when it was worth expending a spell), and interaction (handled by a single % reaction check or just acted out between players & DM - again, when a spell didn't obviate it somehow). I've never seen it work out well. Skill Challenges, perhaps, came the closest, for D&D - they wouldn't be that hard to add back into 5e.
 

I have a "court intrigue" episode coming up in my regular 5E game and I kind of want to develop a quick and dirty "social combat" system for it. My thinking is that if I have such a system in place it will be less likely that only one or two players (and my group is 8 or 9 on any given night) will dominate the conversation.

Basic ideas I have in mind that I could use some help expanding and implementing:

There are three stats: Social Defense is Wisdom based, Social Attack is Charisma based and Social Hit points are a total of all 3 mental attributes.

The court will be full of NPCs (obviously) either alone or in small groups, and these take the place of the monster/enemy. Each will have their social stats, as well as specific Vulnerabilities, Resitances and even Immunities to certain kinds of Social attacks (see below). They themselves will possess one or two kinds of attacks. Most importantly, each will have a secret or a capitulation that is acquired by the PCs when the lose all of their Social Hit Points.

PCs are equipped with Social Vulnerabilities, Resistances and Immunities as well based on class, as well access to specific attack types and special maneuvers based on class, race, feats, etc... because I am doing this for my regular players and I know the characters pretty well, I should be able to assign these in a way that makes sense. Note that if a PC is reduced to 0 Social HP then they are effectively out of the courtly game and must either retreat or capitulate something of their own.

The "enemy" are entirely reactive so while there will be an initiative roll to determine order, it only matters for the PCs. On a PC's turn they can choose a member of the court to engage in social combat and commence with witty barbs and veiled threats, or whatever. Not that "opportunity attacks" will remain in play: if you don't take an action to extricate yourself from your current conversation, you open yourself up to a backhanded compliment or whatever.

My first blush set of attack types are based on stats: Intimidation (Str), Distraction (Dex), Tenacity (Con), Reason (Intelligence), Appeal (Wisdom) and Guile (Cha). Roll a d20, add the stat bonus and if you are proficient in an interaction skill you may make the roll with your proficiency bonus if you can convince me it applies. All Social Attacks do the same damage (I am leaning toward 2d6 to keep the "combat" short since Social HP will hover around 30 or 40)plus the stat mod. As stated, characters will have resistances, vulnerabilities and immunities based on personality traits, class abilities and such.

Special abilities and attacks would include things like:
Witty Riposte: When you take damage from a social attack immediately make a counter attack using Guile. If you succeed, the damage from the attack is halved and the attacker takes as much damage. You may use this ability once per and only until you fail any Guile attack.
Righteous Anger: If an NPC attacks you targeting your Bond, you gain advantage on your next attack against that NPC.
Lure: Grant an opponent Advantage on an attack against you. Regardless if their attack succeeds, gain advantage on your next attack against them. If you took damage from their attack, your next attack, if successful, is a critical hit.
Deflect Blame: After taking damage from a social attack, immediately make an attack roll of the same kind against an Ally. If successful that ally takes the damage from the attack instead of you. You may use this ability once per ally only.

What do you think? Any ideas on how to run this smoothly? Ideas foir special abilities. The party consists of a paladin, 2 warlocks, a sorcerer, a couple fighters, a druid, a wizard and a cleric.

Thanks!

Seriously, just talk with them. This is just a game. It's not that hard. If it bcomes too much of an issue, just send them home to real life to reflect on their behavior.
 

It would be interesting to have more elaborate mechanics around social interactions.

But I'm not sure the system as proposed leads to reasonable results in the general case.

It just doesn't account for things such as rank, social class, respect, honor, racism or similar hostility toward certain backgrounds, setting, membership in the same guild or faction, good or bad moods that day, and etc.

An example: you're an adventurer. You manage to somehow get invited to (or sneak into) the Duke's ball. The Duke has information you require. You can't Intimidate him (he's the Duke), you can't Investigate during the brief amount of conversation he'll tolerate from you without actually, you know, doing the Investigation beforehand. Can't Persuade him because he's just not open to that from peons (unless, again, you've done a lot of legwork in advance). Even if Insight reveals something, were you to try to take advantage of it, he'd typically just have the guards throw you out. That leaves Deception... which might be workable, but I'm not convinced it's best represented as a series of attacks and ripostes until the Duke finally succumbs to your fake story or... or what, humiliates you before the other nobility? Really the danger is that he loses patience and turns away from you, and that doesn't seem like one of the attacks or maneuvers on offer (you can add it, I suppose).

So... it may be great to have a rule set like this for a set-piece encounter like you described. But I would have a hard time using it for general-purpose social interactions.

It seems like there really ARE situations that are closer to a spot decision (whether it actually involves a roll or not). The best way to handle the Duke might well be to do your investigation or similar legwork ahead of time. Then when you get your brief moment of face time, give him your best pitch. ("By the way, did you know your estranged daughter has actually been kidnapped?"). And if for any reason it fails, you don't get to try a different angle and succeed. ("Oh, you knew. Well, give me the information anyway or I'll take your other daughter.")

But... maybe you were only proposing it for the one-shot? In which case, even if I argue that it's not that realistic, it may be a reasonable enough abstraction and if it ends up being fun, good enough?
 

Seriously, just talk with them. This is just a game. It's not that hard. If it bcomes too much of an issue, just send them home to real life to reflect on their behavior.

"Send them home to reflect on their behaviour"?You're the DM, not their dad. Besides, what happens if you game at their house? Do you send them to their bedroom without any supper?
 

Having intimidation based on Strength doesn't make any sense. In a court scenario, the best way to intimidate someone is to threaten to expose their secrets, not threaten to tear their arms off.
 

"Send them home to reflect on their behaviour"?You're the DM, not their dad. Besides, what happens if you game at their house? Do you send them to their bedroom without any supper?
actually no. Just send them home. Let them figure it out. You're right, they are adults.
 

Having intimidation based on Strength doesn't make any sense. In a court scenario, the best way to intimidate someone is to threaten to expose their secrets, not threaten to tear their arms off.

You doubt how easy it is to threaten to squash someone's head. Classic crime boss style "I think you want to do this for me. As a matter of fact, you would love to do this for me." *pinches a walnut into splinters/squeezes hand freakishly hard*
 


These seem very much to be "how a hostile encounter plays out" but with social combat instead of, well, combat combat.

What I would look for in a social combat framework would be factions, webs of trust, reputation, favor, doing favors, and other long term issues as well.

Let's take reputation. Some reputation is useful, some harmful, and really depends on the person listening. Being able to add a negative reputation or tarnish someone's reputation would definitely be a valuable outcome of a social encounter, as much as enhancing you own.

Aligning your actions with the goals of factions could make you favored with them - or make you seem their unwitting patsy. Either way can anger those who resist their goals.

I'd want something where it's a witty remark is part of a long term build up of position, a thoughtless statement is actually a stab in the back of a "friend", and trust is a precious commodity. All encoded in the rules. If that's all done by DM fiat, then I trust the DM to do the rest of the RP results by fiat as well.
 

Remove ads

Top