Huh? 5e has social as one of its pillars, quite a few skills and abilities that move that way engaging that and even a fairly robust, reactive and resilient sub-system in its DMG... So no idea what of this encounter or diplomacy is not intended to be a part of 5e "at all."
D&D 5E Is Charm Monster too good?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I say convincing a friend to attack another friend is more challenging than a dc 20 check. Especially when there are other non-friends that seem to be aggressive to his friends that he could attack as well.
So I say the issue was with the DC.
So I say the issue was with the DC.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Sorry, it was supposed to say "diplomancy". Autocorrect.
Ok, so, the issue still stands, why would you think diplomancy is not a thing 5e is meant to include, see use, whatever "at all"?
Well, within system, for a friendly character getting them to take high risk or sacrifice is a DC 20 check.
However, as noted the GM can rule things as not possible or disadvantaged or assign other DCs as appropriate, plus time required etc.
To me the more obvious and more likely approach would be a plea to "help settle this without more fighting. You get you guys to stand down, I will get mine, then we can work it out" and it's quite possible the cyclop's get into fight over that- with me offering to back his play, etc.
But the key comes down to the GM determining more than just "tempo cyclops" to see if friends fits at all. I seem to remember that one story where the other cyclops dud not act very friendly to their disabled comrade.
I find the system works well if those things are done but less so if it's just treated as DC and compulsion.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Because I like the subsystems for social interaction in the DMG. They are light and logical, and assume types of social interactions that make sense. They work with the basic 5e assumptions that the DM starts by deciding if something is even possible (ie, can you even change a certain creatures attitude to you from Hostile to Indifferent in a particular situation?) If it is, they give you guidance on how to do that, that often doesn't even require a check. When a check is called for because the result of something is uncertain, the possible results of that check fall within ranges that make sense based on normal human assumptions.
They don't assume anything like the 3e Epic Level Handbook high DC uses of Diplomacy where if you could hit high enough numbers you could change someone's opinion of you from overt hostility to fanatically ready, willing and rearing to go to sacrifice their life for you in 6 seconds.
In 5e, if you can figure out the right way to get someone's attitude of you to Friendly (charm spells are way to magi-cheat here, so that's cool), and the DM judges that this creature might be able to be convinced to do a certain thing at all through conversation (ie, the result is even possible in this situation), and, you have what the DM judges to be a sufficient amount of time to attempt it, then you might be able to make a check to see if you can convince them to do so (possibly with Advantage, with charm gives you for free).
So a framework to assist a DM in structuring social responses is what 5e has, a way to bend someone's will to you in a few seconds (diplomancy) is what 3e had.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Ah so you are using thevgdnersl term Diplomancy as in the specific rpic level 3rd edition? Ok, do yeah then I guess that is right or not. I dont know cuz I had dropped e.5 and never adopted the epic levrl diplonsncy.
But 5e does carry through diplomancy in the more general term of having social frameworks sndcdpells which can combine to get those done.
As I have referenced those same sub-systems and impsctnof charm etc. I think we agree on our preferences.
Lack of concentration is nice but the spell itself doesn't really do that much. The attitude shift is the important part, and protection from being attacked. The discrepancy isn't in the spell but in how the social interaction check was handled.
As others mentioned, a bonus action or action to give instructions immediately followed isn't necessarily appropriate. Taking risks is subjective to how much of a risk and in this case the risk was rather extreme (loss of life or loss of family regardless of outcome of the fight).
Charmed creates friendship, not control. Convincing friends takes time, not quick actions or commands.
From the Cyclops perspective, he's been charmed. He cannot attack the charmer. The charmer is his friend who is trying to convince him to attack someone to whom he's not hostile while the charmer's friends, to whom he is still hostile, is also attacking his other friendly companion. That's the situation taking place while making the persuasion attempt. The DM would still treat the cyclops as any other uncontrolled NPC in a similar situation.
The fight would probably be over before the social persuasion could be accomplished, tbh. It's more likely the charmer merely bought himself some protection from one cyclops, and I can see other ways it might play out, but not like what happened.
I would also point out that the ability to roll a 22 persuasion is either a lucky roll or the result of significant investment. A 15 DC using a 4th level spell means 8th level characters (+5 ability score, +2 proficiency bonus). In order to roll a 22 on the check the caster needs to either be CHA based or proficient and still have an extremely high roll; or both and only needed a 15 on that check to roll the 22 given barring some hedgecase examples.
Even a bard with expertise in persuasion would still need a 13 at that level to make that roll. That means the check itself isn't that difficult for the specific caster in question but still not that casual either an required significant investment or luck. ;-)
The "influence" of the powerful spell is specific in what it does. A persuasion check is not magic, however, and that's what we're really looking at here.
Suggestion actually creates a directive. Even then it's subjective in what that can accomplish.
Either spell ends if you or your companions do something harmful to the subject.
Charm person or monster are both over-rated, imo, and the scenario given was an over-powered use of persuasion. ;-)
EDIT: brain fart. Level 8 is +3 prof, so +4 casting stat?
Last edited:
The spell says exactly what it does. You consider the caster a friend, and you are under the charmed condition (which has defined rules effects). That is the sum total of what the spell does. Thus, your behavior is the same as it would be if one of your friends was attacking the other.
Similar Threads
