Repeated checks you normally use the Passive score, per the PHB. So if the difficulty is too high they don't get the door open.
The DCs are based on one roll or Passive score, that's why they are much lower than 3e DCs.
D&D 5E Persuasion - How powerful do you allow it to be?
Repeated checks you normally use the Passive score, per the PHB. So if the difficulty is too high they don't get the door open.
The DCs are based on one roll or Passive score, that's why they are much lower than 3e DCs.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Then, yes, if they only get one shot and then can't open the door, that sounds like a consequence. I'm not real clear on when you go to passive scores, though, but "only one try allowed" seems a legit way to impose consequences.
Inchoroi
Adventurer
In short, no, saying that there are some NPCs that simply can't be persuaded isn't wrong in any way. That's how the real world works, too. Some people can't be persuaded no matter how eloquent or powerful your argument is, sometimes simply because you're trying to persuade them.
That being said, you should also give them opportunities where a player who has invested their character into Persuasion and Charisma can shine and persuade people to do things. Just not all the time. I will usually write up some "important" things that NPCs believe in and can't be persuaded to violate (sometimes using the Background from 5e, for example), and then play the rest by ear.
For example, lets take the vestal virgin you mentioned above. If she's not an important NPCs to the plot, give him (whom I will call "Lothario" for clarity) a chance to destroy her vows and probably destroy any chance she has of remaining as a priestess (in other words, let the Lothario's player know that there are some consequences if he succeeds). If he still wants to try it, let him roll, but use the fact that she would be hostile to this idea to raise her "mental defenses" against it. Since I run 5e, I use passive Insight to do so. As a priestess, she's probably got a decent wisdom, so lets say her passive Insight is 13 (10 + her Wisdom modifier). To get someone to sleep with you, you'd have to make the NPC's attitude towards the idea Helpful, and her starting attitude towards the idea is Hostile. For each step from Hostile to Helpful, add a +5 to her passive Insight; that means its Hostile -> Unfriendly -> Indifferent -> Friendly -> Helpful, so she'd have a passive Insight of 33 (13 + 20) to resist the Lothario's Persuasion attempts. Finally, our vestal virgin then would have to fail against the Lothario's persuasion a number of times equal to her Wisdom modifier before being persuaded, and she can only fail once per day (but our Lothario can get more than one success each day); you can give the Lothatio an extra success for each +5 over the NPC's passive Insight the Lothario rolls. I would probably also give him disadvantage if he was particularly crass in his attempt, too.
As a consequence of doing so, he and the party can no longer receive any healing from that priesthood at all, because of that player's actions (in the case of the vestal virgin, though, I'd have said "Well, the priestess actually curses you for the clumsy attempt at seduction. Roll a Wisdom save.") I chose to use this example because its the extreme and, unfortunately, common trope. I do not advocate attempting to seduce vestal virgins.
To prevent the slightly rape-y vibes of things above, I will provide some NPCs throughout the story that are "romance-able," just in case a player wants to do that sort of thing. Only twice has anyone taken up the opportunity, one being a gnome bard helping a tribal matriarch to overcome her sorrow, as it were, and the other actually ended up with the PC marrying the NPC and having triplets (yes, I had to write rules for pregnancy just for that).
Using it on another player character, though, is really dangerous for the health of the group. There's only one group that I've ever had where I would allow stuff like that, and even then I expect that they wouldn't. On the Pro side of things, it adds drama, and I like that; on the Con side, people get tetchy when you say, "Oh, your character has to do this thing." If you judge that your players are mature enough to handle the drama in-character, then use the above as a guide.
Passive scores are for repeated actions over time. Like tracking a foe, or searching for traps while dungeoneering. Not for opening a door. And, again, if there are no further consequences (i.e. the foe behind the door is now aware of the PCs) then the door will open but the foe is able to gain the element of surprise (or whatever).
In my original example I was thinking of arcana checks and the like, where the consequences could be triggering a trap, eventually, but other PCs want to “try their luck” deciphering the runes.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I would say there's a difference between "retries" and "repeats" when it comes to adjudication. In "retries," the character fails, the player wants to have him or her try again, and the only real cost is the time it takes. Per the rules, assuming the goal is achievable given the approach, the character takes 10 times the normal amount of time needed to normally complete the task. The character fails the first attempt, so now the player has the option to trade time for automatic success (no roll). Note that if the approach to the goal fails and it wouldn't make sense for the same approach to subsequently succeed, then "retries" are not possible. This is in the DMG, page 237.
"Repeats" is when you're performing a task repeatedly, but in an overall sense such as when traveling - you're performing the task a number of times, but the circumstances are changing along the way. You're not just stood at one door trying to get it open. Passive Perception used to detect traps in the front rank of the marching order while traveling or to have a chance to avoid surprise from hidden monsters is an example of this. You're performing the task of "staying alert to danger" repeatedly as you explore the environment and so a passive check is appropriate when you travel into the path of a trap or monster. Generally speaking, I would say that passive checks for anything other than Perception (because it's used for surprise and traps, specifically) will be rare. "Retries" will be more common, though if there is no time pressure such as a deadline the PCs are operating under or wandering monster checks every so often, the DM might be better off just doing success at a cost or progress combined with a setback for many failed checks. A failed check means you get the door open, but you've made a lot of noise, drawing in a monster from an adjoining area of the dungeon (for example).
LordEntrails
Hero
Just click on the laugh button again, it will remove your previous laugh.
Remember, a failed ability check can be not just "nothing happens" but can be "some progress with setback". So, I find it fine to have the setback often be increased difficulty edpecially for further efforts - even impossibility for the same approach.
To me the bigger problem is the frequency with which FMs default to resolving more complex tasks with single die rolls to begin with.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
Why can't they open the door?
And why are we wasting time with this mundane door?
Now, if a giant boulder is coming that is going to crush them and they need to open it right now, then we're talking. That's drama.
(If we're bringing 3e in...there is no 'take 20' in 5e because there is no need for it. The PCs should just accomplish the task)
ccs
41st lv DM
Well, I've said this before, so I'll say it again here.
When I DM my position is that anything the players can do to an NPC/monster can affect them as well. Stabbing them, robbing them, casting spells on them, using skills on them.... NPC/Monster/Fellow PC - doesn't matter the source.
So if your position is that you should be immune to something because you're a PC? Say skills used against you? Ok.... Just be aware that the DC for you to affect others - NPC/Monster/Fellow PCs - with that just jumped to impossible.
As for PCs trying to accomplish ridiculous/abusive/ etc with something like a single social check? I find that reminding them that it cuts both ways serves as an effective deterrent.
As is pointing out that you will play the results of any dice rolled.
PvP - This is not my concern. PCs aren't, by default, immune to each other when I DM. So...
The players can largely decide this on their own while I sit back & watch.
Though I will set DCs as needed & remind players that they will play the results of any die rolls.
For the most part this has worked out quite well for me over the years. Self-moderation for the win.
So how powerful is something like Persuasion when I DM? As powerful as the Players want it to be.
When I DM my position is that anything the players can do to an NPC/monster can affect them as well. Stabbing them, robbing them, casting spells on them, using skills on them.... NPC/Monster/Fellow PC - doesn't matter the source.
So if your position is that you should be immune to something because you're a PC? Say skills used against you? Ok.... Just be aware that the DC for you to affect others - NPC/Monster/Fellow PCs - with that just jumped to impossible.
As for PCs trying to accomplish ridiculous/abusive/ etc with something like a single social check? I find that reminding them that it cuts both ways serves as an effective deterrent.
As is pointing out that you will play the results of any dice rolled.
PvP - This is not my concern. PCs aren't, by default, immune to each other when I DM. So...
The players can largely decide this on their own while I sit back & watch.
Though I will set DCs as needed & remind players that they will play the results of any die rolls.
For the most part this has worked out quite well for me over the years. Self-moderation for the win.
So how powerful is something like Persuasion when I DM? As powerful as the Players want it to be.
I think the amount of social influence skills is bit high; we got Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion, but is intimidation not a form of persuasion. They are all a form of coercion, could we not have one skill: Influence or Coercion? You can describe how your character goes about this (via diplomacy, intimidation, bluffing, or other social tactics).
